AAA interpolation of equispaced data

Abstract: We propose AAA rational approximation as a method for interpolating or approximating smooth functions from equispaced data samples. Although it is always better to approximate from large numbers of samples if they are available, whether equispaced or not, this method often performs impressively even when the sampling grid is fairly coarse. In most cases it gives more accurate approximations than other methods.

\section{Introduction}

The aim of this paper is to propose a method for interpolation
of real or complex data in equispaced points on an interval, which without
loss of generality we take to be $[-1,1]$.  In its basic form the method
simply computes a AAA rational
approximation\footnote{pronounced ``triple-A''}~\cite{aaa}
to the data, and thus the interpolant is a numerical one,
not mathematically exact: a crucial advantage for
robustness.  In Chebfun~\cite{chebfun}, the fit can be computed
to the default relative accuracy $10^{-13}$ by the command
\begin{equation}
{\tt r = aaa(F)},
\label{command1}
\end{equation}
where $F$ is the vector of data values.
(As explained in Section~3, an adjustment is made if
the AAA approximant turns out to have
poles in the interval of approximation.)
If interpolation by a polynomial rather than a rational function is desired,
this can by determined by a further step in which $r$ is approximated by a Chebyshev series,
\begin{equation}
{\tt p = chebfun(r)}.
\label{command2}
\end{equation}

For example, Figure~\ref{fig1} shows the AAA interpolant $r$ of
$f(x) = e^x/\sqrt{1+9x^2}$ in 50 equispaced points of $[-1,1]$.
This is a rational function of degree $17$ with accuracy $\|f-r\|
\approx 9.6\times 10^{-14}$, computed in about a millisecond on
a laptop.  (Throughout this paper, $\|\cdot\|$ is the
$\infty$-norm over $[-1,1]$.)  The Chebfun polynomial approximation $p$
to $r$ has degree $104$ and the same accuracy $\|f-p\kern .8pt \| \approx
9.6\times 10^{-14}$.  The exact degree 49 polynomial interpolant
$p_{\hbox{\footnotesize\rm exact}}^{}$ to the data, by contrast, has error $\|f-p_{\hbox{\footnotesize\rm exact}}^{}\| \approx
109.3$ because of the Runge phenomenon~\cite{runge,ATAP}.
It is fascinating that one can generate high-degree polynomial interpolants
like this that are so much better between the sample points
than polynomial interpolants of minimal degree, but we see no
particular advantage in $p(x)$ as compared with $r(x)$, so for the remainder
of the paper, we just discuss $r(x)$.

The problem of interpolating or approximating equispaced data arises
in countless applications, and there is a large literature on the
subject, with many algorithms having been proposed, some of them
highly effective in practice.  One reason why no single algorithm
has taken over is that there is an unavoidable tradeoff in this
problem between accuracy and stability.  In particular, if $n$
equispaced samples are taken of a function $f$ that is analytic
on $[-1,1]$, one might expect that exponential convergence to $f$
should be possible as $n\to\infty$.  However, the {\em impossibility
theorem\/} asserts that exponential convergence is only possible in
tandem with exponential instability, and that, conversely,
a stable algorithm can converge at best at a root-exponential rate
$\|f-r_n\| = \exp(-C\sqrt n\kern 1pt)$, $C>0$~\cite{ptk}.  In practice, it is
usual to operate in an in-between regime, accepting some instability
as the price of better accuracy.  In the face of this complexity, it
follows that different algorithms may be advantageous for different
classes of functions, and that pinning down the properties of any
particular algorithm may not be straightforward.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\vspace*{15pt}
\includegraphics[scale=.9]{fig1.eps}
\vspace*{5pt}
\end{center}
\caption{\small\label{fig1}AAA interpolation of
$f(x) = e^x/\sqrt{1+9x^2}$ in $50$ equispaced points in $[-1,1]$.
The rational interpolant, of degree $17$, matches $f$ to accuracy $3.3 \times 10^{-14}$
at the sample points and $9.6\times 10^{-14}$ on $[-1,1]$.}
\end{figure}

In this complicated situation we will do our best to elucidate the
properties of AAA interpolation.  First we compare its
performance numerically against that of some existing algorithms for a collection
of approximation problems (sections~2 and~3), and then we present certain
theoretical considerations (section 4).  The final section briefly
discusses AAA variants, the effect of noise, and other issues.

Apart from some remarks around Figure~\ref{twoposs},
we will not describe details of the AAA algorithm, partly because
these can be found elsewhere~\cite{aaa} and partly because the
essential point here is not AAA per se but just
rational approximation.
At present, AAA appears to be the best general-purpose
rational approximation tool available, but other methods may come along
in the future.

\section{Existing methods}

Many methods have been proposed for interpolation or approximation of equispaced
data, and we will not attempt a comprehensive review.  We will,
however, mention the main categories of methods and choose five specific
examples for numerical comparisons.  For previous surveys with further
references, see~\cite{bo1,bo2,ptk}.

With any interpolant or approximant, there are always the two
questions of the {\em form\/} of the approximant and the {\em
method\/} of defining or computing it.  The main forms that have been
advocated are polynomials or piecewise polynomials,
Fourier series, rational functions, radial
basis functions (RBFs), and various modifications and combinations
of these.  The methods proposed generally involve mathematically
exact interpolation or some version of least-squares approximation.
(Ironically, because of conditioning issues, exact interpolants may
be less accurate in floating-point arithmetic than least-squares
approximations, even at the sample points, let alone in-between.)
Almost every method involves a choice of one or two parameters, which usually
affect the tradeoff between accuracy and stability and can
therefore be interpreted in part as regularization parameters.
AAA interpolation may appear at first as an exception to this rule,
but a parameter implicitly involved is the tolerance, which in
the Chebfun implementation is set by default to $10^{-13}$.  We will
discuss this further in Section 4.

\smallskip
{\em Polynomial least-squares.}
Interpolation of $n$ data values by a polynomial of degree $n-1$ leads to
exponential instability at a rate $O(2^n)$, as has been known
since Runge in 1901~\cite{runge,ATAP}.  Least-squares fitting
by a polynomial of degree $d< n-1$, however, is better behaved.
To cut off the exponential growth as $n\to\infty$ entirely, $d$ must
be restricted to size $O(\sqrt n\kern 1pt )$~\cite{bx,rakh}, but one
can often get away with larger values in practice, and a simple
choice is $d  \approx n/\gamma$, where $\gamma>1$ is an {\em oversampling ratio}.
According to equation (4.1) of~\cite{ptk}, this cuts the exponential unstable
growth rate from $2^n$ to $C^n$ with
\begin{equation}
C = \left[(1+\alpha)^{1+\alpha} (1-\alpha)^{1-\alpha}\right]^{1/2}, \quad
\alpha =  1/\gamma.
\label{kuijlaars}
\end{equation}
For example, $\gamma=2$ yields a growth rate of about $(3^{3/4}/2)^n \approx
(1.14)^n$, which is mild
enough to be a good choice in many applications.
Our experiments of Figure~\ref{figbig} in the
next section use this value $\gamma=2$.

\smallskip
{\em Fourier, polynomial, and RBF extensions.}
The idea of {\em Fourier extension\/} is to approximate $f$ by a Fourier series
tied not to $[-1,1]$ but to a larger domain
$[-T,T\kern 1pt]$~\cite{boyd02,bhp}.
The fit is carried out by least-squares or regularized least-squares,
often simply
by means of the backslash operator in MATLAB, as has been analyzed
by Adcock, Huybrechs, and Vaquero~\cite{ahmv,h09} and Lyon~\cite{lyon}.
A related idea is {\em polynomial extension}, in which $f$ is approximated by
polynomials expressed in a basis of orthogonal polynomials defined on
an interval $[-T,T\kern 1pt]$~\cite{as}.  A third possibility is {\em
RBF extension,} in which $f$ is approximated by smooth RBFs whose centers
extend outside $[-1,1]$~\cite{flt,piret}.  In Figure~\ref{figbig} of the
next section, we use Fourier extension with $T=2$ and an oversampling
ratio of $2$, so that the least-squares matrices have twice as many
rows as columns.

\smallskip
{\em Fourier series with corrections.}
If $f$ is periodic, trigonometric (Fourier) interpolation provides a
perfect approximation method: exponentially convergent and stable.
In the case of quadrature, this becomes the exponentially
convergent trapezoidal rule~\cite{tw}.  For nonperiodic $f$,
an attractive idea is to
employ a trigonometric fit modified by corrections of one sort or another,
often the addition of a polynomial term,
designed to mitigate the effect of the implicit discontinuity at
the boundary.  This idea goes back as far as James Gregory in 1670, before
Fourier analysis and even calculus~\cite{forn21}!\ \ The result
will not be exponentially convergent, but it can have an algebraic
convergence rate of arbitrary order depending on the choice of the
corrections, and the rate may improve to super-algebraic if the
correction order is taken to increase with $n$.  This idea has
been applied in many variations, an early example being a method
of Eckhoff with precursors he attributes to Krylov and Lanczos~\cite{eckhoff}.
In the ``Gregory interpolant''
of~\cite{jt}, an interpolant in the form of a sum of a trigonometric term and
a polynomial is constructed whose integral equals
the result for the Gregory quadrature formula.
Fornberg has proposed (for quadrature, not yet approximation)
a method of regularized endpoint corrections in
which extra parameters are introduced whose
amplitudes are then limited by optimization~\cite{forn21}.
Figure~\ref{figbig} of the next section shows curves for
a least-squares method in which a Fourier series is combined with a polynomial term of
degree about $\sqrt n$, with an oversampling ratio of about $2$.

\smallskip
{\em Multi-domain methods.}
Related in spirit to methods involving boundary corrections are
methods in which $f$ is approximated by different functions over different
subintervals of $[-1,1]$---in the simplest case, a big central interval and two
smaller intervals near the ends.  For examples see~\cite{boyd07,bo2,klein13,pg}.

\smallskip
{\em Splines.}  Splines, which are piecewise polynomials
satisfying certain continuity conditions, take the multi-domain idea further and
are an obvious candidate for
approximations that will not suffer from Gibbs oscillations at the boundaries.
The most familiar case is cubic spline interpolants, where the sample
points are nodes separating cubic pieces with
continuity of function values and first and second derivatives.
Cubic splines (with the standard natural boundary conditions at the ends
and not-a-knot conditions one node in from the ends) are one of the methods
presented in Figure~\ref{figbig} of the next section.

\smallskip
{\em Mapping.}  By a conformal map, polynomial approximations can be
transformed to other approximations that are more suitable for equispaced
interpolation and approximation.  The prototypical method in this area
was introduced by Kosloff and Tal-Ezer~\cite{kte}, and there is also
a connection with prolate spheroidal wave functions~\cite{prolate}.
The general conformal mapping point of
view was put forward in~\cite{ht} and in~\cite[chapter 22]{ATAP}.
See also~\cite{boyd16}.

\smallskip
{\em Gegenbauer reconstruction.}  Another class of methods has been
developed from the point of view of edge detection and elimination of
the Gibbs phenomenon in harmonic analysis.  For entries
into this extensive literature, see~\cite{gt} and~\cite{tadmor}.

\smallskip
{\em Explicit regularization methods.}  Several other methods, often
nonlinear, have been proposed involving various strategies of
explicit regularization to counter the instability of
high-accuracy approximation~\cite{berzins,boyd92,chand,wmi}.
We emphasize that even many of the simpler numerical methods implicitly involve
regularization introduced by rounding errors, as will be discussed
in Section~4.

\smallskip
{\em Floater--Hormann rational interpolation:~Chebfun \verb|'equi'|.}
Finally, here is another method involving rational functions.
Floater and Hormann introduced a family of degree $n-1$ rational interpolants in
barycentric form whose weights can be adjusted
to achieve any prescribed order of accuracy~\cite{fh}.  (The AAA method also uses
a barycentric representation, but it is an approximant, in principle, not
an interpolant, and it is not very closely related to Floater--Hormann approximation.)
The method we show in Figure~\ref{figbig} of the next section, due to
Klein~\cite{gk,klein}, is based on interpolants
whose order of accuracy is adaptively determined via the
\verb|'equi'| option of the Chebfun constructor~\cite{bos,chebex}.

\section{Numerical comparison}

As mentioned in the opening paragraph, our
interpolation method consists of AAA approximation with its
standard tolerance of $10^{-13}$, so long as the approximant that
is produced has no ``bad poles,'' that is,
poles in the interval $[-1,1]$.  The principal
drawback of AAA approximation is that such poles sometimes appear---often
with such small residues that they do not contribute
meaningfully to the quality of the approximation (in which case
they may be called ``spurious poles'' or ``Froissart doublets''~\cite{ATAP}).
When the original
AAA paper~\cite{aaa} was published, a ``cleanup'' procedure was
proposed to address this problem.  We are no longer confident that
this procedure is very helpful, and instead, we now propose the
method of {\em AAA-least squares} (AAA-LS) introduced
in~\cite{costa}.  Here, if there are any bad poles, these are discarded, and
the other poles are retained to form the basis of a linear least-squares
fit to find a new rational approximation represented in partial fractions form.
For details, see the ``{\tt if any}'' block in the AAA part of
the code listed in the appendix.
Typically this correction makes little difference to accuracy down to
levels of $10^{-7}$ or so, but it is often unsuccessful at achieving tighter
accuracies than this.

Poles in $[-1,1]$ almost never appear in the approximation of functions
$f(x)$ that are complex (a case not illustrated here as it is less common
in applications).  For real problems, accordingly, another way of avoiding bad
poles is to perturb the data by a small, smooth complex function.
Overall, however, it must be said that the appearance
of unwanted poles in AAA approximants is not yet fully understood, and
it seems likely that improvements are in store in this active research area.

Comparing the AAA method against other methods can quickly grow very
complicated since most methods have
adjustable parameters and there are any number of functions
one could apply them to.  To keep
the discussion under control, the panels of Figure~\ref{figbig}
correspond to five functions:
\begin{alignat}{3}
&f_A^{}(x) &&= \sqrt{1.21-x^2}\kern 20pt &&
 \hbox{(branch points at $\pm 1.1$),}\\[2pt]
&f_B^{}(x) &&= \sqrt{0.01+x^2}  && \hbox{(branch points at $\pm 0.1i$),}\\[3pt]
&f_C^{}(x) &&= \tanh(5x)        && \hbox{(poles on the imaginary axis),}\\[3.5pt]
&f_D^{}(x) &&= \sin(40x)        && \hbox{(entire, oscillatory),}\\[3pt]
&f_E^{}(x) &&= \exp(-1/x^2)     && \hbox{($C^\infty$ but not analytic).}
\end{alignat}
Each panel displays convergence curves for six methods:
\vskip 6pt
~~~~~~Cubic splines,
\vskip 3pt
~~~~~~Polynomial least-squares with oversampling ratio $\gamma = 2$,
\vskip 3pt
~~~~~~Fourier extension on $[-2,2]$ with oversampling ratio $\gamma = 2$,
\vskip 3pt
~~~~~~Fourier series plus polynomial of degree $\sqrt n$ with oversampling ratio $\gamma = 2$,
\vskip 3pt
~~~~~~Floater--Hormann rational interpolation: Chebfun \verb|'equi'|,
\vskip 3pt
~~~~~~AAA with tolerance $10^{-13}$.
\vskip 6pt
\noindent For details of the methods, see the code
listing in the appendix.

\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace*{5pt}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{testsplt.eps}
\vspace{-3pt}
\end{center}
\caption{\small\label{figbig}Six approximation methods applied to five
smooth functions on $[-1,1]$.  In each case the horizontal axis is $n$,
the number of sample points, and the vertical axis is $\|f-r\|$, the maximum
error over $[-1,1]$.  The thicker dot on the AAA curve marks the final value of $n$
at which the rational function is an interpolant rather than just an approximation.
The dashed lines in (A) and (D) mark the instability estimate
$(1.14)^n\varepsilon_{\hbox{\scriptsize\rm machine}}$ from $(\ref{kuijlaars})$
with oversampling ratio $\gamma=2$.
The results are discussed in the text, and the code
is listed in the appendix.}
\end{figure}

Many observations can be drawn from Figure~\ref{figbig}.  The most
basic is that AAA consistently appears to be the best of the methods,
and is the first to reach accuracy $10^{-10}$ in every case.  It is
typical for AAA to converge twice as fast as the other methods, and for the
test function $f_C^{}(x) = \tanh(z)$, whose singularities consist of
poles that the AAA approximants readily capture, its superiority
is especially striking.

It is worth spelling out the meaning of the AAA convergence curves
of Figure~\ref{figbig}.
Each point on one of these curves corresponds to
a rational approximation whose error is $10^{-13}$ or less on the
discrete grid (at least if the partial fractions least-squares
procedure has not been invoked because of bad poles).
For very small~$n$, this will be a rational interpolant,
of degree $\lceil (n-1)/2\rceil$, with error exactly zero on the grid in principle
though nonzero in floating-point arithmetic.  In the figure, the last
such $n$ is marked by a thicker dot.  For most $n$, AAA terminates with
a rational approximant of degree less than
$\lceil (n-1)/2\rceil$ that matches the data to accuracy $10^{-13}$
on the grid without interpolating exactly.
We think of this as a numerical interpolant, since the
error on the grid is so small, whereas much larger errors
are possible between the grid points.  As the grid gets finer, the
errors between grid points reduce until the tolerance of $10^{-13}$
is reached all across $[-1,1]$.

Another observation about Figure~\ref{figbig} is that
the Floater--Hormann \verb|'equi'| meth\-od is very good~\cite{bos}.
Unlike AAA in its pure form, without partial fractions correction, it
is guaranteed always to produce an interpolant that is pole-free
in $[-1,1]$.

The slowest method to converge is often cubic splines, whose behavior is rock
solid algebraic at the fixed rate $\|f-r\| = O(n^{-4})$, assuming
$f$ is smooth enough.  The convergence of spline
approximations could be speeded up by using degrees that increase
with $n$ (no doubt at the price of some of that rock solidity).

In panels (A) and (D) of Figure~\ref{figbig}, the polynomial least-squares
approximations converge at first but eventually
diverge exponentially because of unstable amplification of
rounding errors.  Note that the upward-sloping red curves in these two
figures both extrapolate back to about $10^{-16}$, machine precision; the
dotted red lines mark the prediction $10^{-16}\times (1.14)^n$ from (\ref{kuijlaars}) with $\gamma = 2$.
Before this point, it is interesting to compare the very different initial phases
for $f_A^{}$, with singularities near
$x=\pm 1$, and $f_B^{}$, with singularities near $x=0$.  Clearly we
have initial convergence in the first case and initial divergence in the second,
a consequence of Runge's principle that convergence of polynomial interpolants
depends on analyticity near the middle of the interval.
The figure for the function $f_E^{}$ looks much like that for $f_B^{}$.

The Fourier extension method, as a rule, does somewhat better than
polynomial least-squares in Figure~\ref{figbig}; in certain
limits one expects Fourier methods to have an advantage over
polynomials of a factor of $\pi/2$~\cite[chapter~22]{ATAP}.  Perhaps not too much should
be read into the precise positions of these curves in
the figure, however, as both methods have been implemented
with arbitrary choices of parameters that might have been adjusted
in various ways.

\section{Convergence properties}

What can be said in general about AAA approximation of equispaced
data?  We shall organize the discussion around two questions to be
taken up in successive subsections.
\vspace{7pt}
\begin{itemize}
\item
How does the method normally behave?
\item
How is this behavior consistent with the impossibility theorem?
\end{itemize}
\vspace{7pt}
\noindent
It would be good to support our observations with theorems guaranteeing the success of
the method under appropriate hypotheses,
but unfortunately, like most methods of rational approximation, AAA lacks a theoretical
foundation.

A key property affecting all of the discussion is that, unlike four
of the other five methods of Figure~\ref{figbig} (all but
Floater--Hormann \verb|'equi'|), AAA approximation is
nonlinear.  As so often happens in computational mathematics, the nonlinearity
is essential to its power, while at the same time leading to analytical challenges.
For example, it means that the theory of frames in numerical approximation,
as presented in~\cite{fna1,fna2,ds}, is not directly applicable.
A theme of that theory, however, remains important here, which is to
distinguish between {\em approximation\/} and
{\em sampling}.  The approximation issue is, how well can rational
functions approximate a smooth function $f$ on $[-1,1]$?  The sampling
issue is, how effectively will an algorithm based on equally spaced samples find these
good rational approximations?

Our discussion will make reference to the five example functions
$f_A^{},\dots, f_E^{}$ of Figure~\ref{figbig}, which are illustrative of many more
experiments we have carried out, and in addition we will consider
a sixth function.  In any analysis of polynomial approximations on
$[-1,1]$, and also in the proof of the impossibility theorem
(even though this result is not restricted to polynomial approximations),
one encounters functions analytic inside a {\em Bernstein ellipse} in
the complex plane, which means an ellipse with foci $\pm 1$.
We define the {\em amber function} (Bernstein means amber
in German) by its Chebyshev series
\begin{equation}
A(x) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty  2^{-k} s_k T_k(x),
\label{amber}
\end{equation}
where the numbers $s_k = \pm 1$ are determined by the binary
expansion of $\pi$,
\begin{equation}
\pi = 11.00100100001111110110\dots\kern 1pt{}_2^{},
\label{pi}
\end{equation}
with $s_k=1$ when the bit is $1$
and $s_k=-1$ when it is $0$.  In Chebfun, one can construct $A$ with the commands
\vspace{6pt}
{\small
\begin{verbatim}
              s = dec2bin(floor(2^52*pi));
              c = 2.^(0:-1:-53)';
              ii = find(s=='0'); c(ii) = -c(ii);
              A = chebfun(c,'coeffs');
\end{verbatim}
\par}
\vspace{6pt}

\noindent
The point of $A(x)$ is that it is analytic in the Bernstein
$2$-ellipse but has
no further analytic structure beyond that, since the bits of $\pi$ are
effectively random.  In particular, it is not analytic or meromorphic in
any larger region of the $x$-plane.  (We believe it has
the $2$-ellipse as a natural boundary~\cite[chap.~4]{kahane}.)
Figure~\ref{figamber} sketches $A(x)$ over $[-1,1]$.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\kern 7pt
\includegraphics[scale=.7]{amber}
\caption{\label{figamber}The amber function, a test function constructed to be
analytic in the Bernstein
$2$-ellipse but not in any larger region of
the complex $x$-plane.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{ambercurves} is another plot along the lines of Figure~\ref{figbig}, but
for $A(x)$, and extending to $n=400$ instead of $200$.
We are now prepared to examine the properties of AAA interpolation.

\begin{figure}
\vspace*{10pt}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.9]{ambercurves}
\caption{\label{ambercurves}A convergence plot as
in Figure~$\ref{figbig}$ for the amber function $A(x)$ of~$(\ref{amber})$.  Note
that for this function, which has no analytic structure beyond analyticity in the
Bernstein $2$-ellipse, the AAA and {\tt 'equi'} methods perform similarly.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\bigskip
\noindent{\bf 4.1. How does the method normally behave?}
\smallskip

We believe the usual behavior of AAA equispaced interpolation is as follows.  For
small values of $n$, there is a good chance that $f$ will be poorly resolved on the
grid, and the initial AAA interpolant will have poles between the grid points in $[-1,1]$.  In such cases,
as described in the last section, the method switches to a least-squares fit that often
produces acceptable accuracy but without outperforming other methods.

As $n$ increases, however, $f$ begins to be resolved, and here rational approximation shows its
power.  If $f$ happens to be itself rational, like the Runge function $1/(1+25x^2)$
used for experiments in a number of other papers,
AAA may capture it exactly.  More typically, $f$ is
not rational but, as in the examples of Figure~\ref{figbig}, it has analytic
structure that rational approximants can exploit.  If it is meromorphic, like $\tanh(5x)$,
then AAA quickly finds nearby poles and therefore converges at an accelerating rate.
Even if it has branch point singularities, rapid convergence still takes
place~\cite{clustering}.

In this middle phase of rapid convergence of AAA approximation, the errors are
many orders of magnitude bigger between the grid points (e.g., $10^{-6}$) than
at the grid points ($10^{-13}$).  The big errors may be near the
endpoints, the pattern familiar in polynomial interpolation since Runge,
but they may also
be in the interior, as happens for example with approximation
of $f(x) = \sqrt{0.01 + x^2}$. Figure~\ref{twoposs} illustrates
these two possibilities.  Convergence eventually happens because the grid points
get closer together and the big errors between them are clamped down.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\vspace*{8pt}
\includegraphics[scale=.85]{twoposs}
\caption{\label{twoposs}AAA approximation in its mid-phase of
rapid convergence at $n=50$ for two different functions $f(x)$.
Black dots mark the $n$ sample points, with errors below the AAA relative
tolerance level of $10^{-13}$ marked by the red line.  The circled black dots
are the subset of AAA support points, where the error in principle is $0$ (apart from
rounding errors), though it has been artificially plotted at $10^{-18}$.
With $f(x) = \sqrt{1.21-x^2}$, above, the big errors between sample points are
near the boundaries, whereas with
$f(x) = \sqrt{0.01+x^2}$, below, they are in the interior.}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-3pt}
\end{figure}

The AAA method does not keep converging for $n\to\infty$, however.
Instead, it eventually slows down and is limited by its prescribed
relative accuracy, $10^{-13}$ by default.  Thus although it gets high accuracy faster
than the other methods, in the end it too levels off.
To illustrate the significance of the AAA tolerance, Figure~\ref{julia}
repeats the error plots for $f_C^{}(x) = \tanh(5x)$ and $f_D^{}(x)
= \sin(40 x)$ for $n = 4,8,\dots, 200$, but now calculated in 77-digit
BigFloat arithmetic using Julia (with the GenericLinearAlgebra
package) instead of the usual 16-digit
floating point arithmetic.  The solid curve shows behavior with tolerance
$10^{-13}$ and the blue dots with tolerance $10^{-50}$.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\kern 8pt
\includegraphics[scale=1.05]{julia}
\caption{\label{julia}AAA errors for two of the functions
of Figure~$\ref{figbig}$ computed in $77$-digit precision
with Julia.  The solid lines are based on the usual AAA tolerance
of $10^{-13}$, and the blue dots are based on
tolerance $10^{-50}$.
(This computation does not check for poles in $[-1,1]$, which should
in principle lead to values $\|f-r\|=\infty$ especially
in the early stages of the curves on the right; but here the error
is just measured on a $1000$-point equispaced grid.)}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

The amber function $A(x)$ was constructed to have no hidden analytic
structure to be exploited; we think of it as being as far from rational as possible.
In Figure~\ref{ambercurves}, this is
reflected in the fact that AAA and polynomial approximants converge at approximately the
same rate until the latter begins to diverge exponentially.
Note also that in Figure~\ref{ambercurves}, unlike the five plots of Figure~\ref{figbig},
AAA fails to outperform the Floater--Hormann \verb|'equi'| method.
This is consistent with the view
that AAA is a robust strategy that exploits analytic structure whereas
Floater--Hormann is a robust interpolation strategy that does not exploit analytic structure.

\bigskip
\noindent{\bf 4.2. How is this consistent with the impossibility theorem?}
\smallskip

In the introduction we summarized the
impossibility theorem of~\cite{ptk} as follows.
In approximation of analytic
functions from $n$ equispaced samples,
exponential convergence as $n\to\infty$ is only possible in
tandem with exponential instability; conversely,
a stable algorithm can converge at best root-exponentially.
The essential reason for this (and the essential construction in
the proof of the theorem) can be summarized in a sentence.
{\em Some analytic functions
are much bigger between the sample points than they are at the sample points;
thus high accuracy requires some approximations to be huge.}
We now explain how the
theorem relates to the six numerical methods presented in Figures~\ref{figbig}
and~\ref{ambercurves}.

{\em Fourier series plus polynomials}, with our choice of polynomial degree
$O(\sqrt n\kern 1pt)$, converge at a root-exponential rate.  It it neither
exponentially accurate nor exponentially unstable.

The {\em Floater--Hormann \verb|'equi'| interpolant} also converges (it appears)
at a root exponential rate, for reasons related to its adaptive choice of degree.

{\em Cubic splines} converge at a lower rate, just $O(n^{-4})$ for
smooth $f$.  Again this method is neither
exponentially accurate nor exponentially unstable.

{\em Fourier extension} also appears to converge root-exponentially, making it, too,
neither exponentially accurate nor exponentially unstable.

{\em Polynomial least-squares,} however, reveals the hugeness of
certain functions.  In the terms of the
theorem, this is the only one of our methods that
appears to be exponentially accurate and exponentially unstable.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\kern 8pt
\includegraphics[scale=1.05]{twobytwo}
\caption{\label{twobytwo}The solid lines repeat the polynomial least-squares
(left) and Fourier extension (right) curves of Figure~$\ref{ambercurves}$.
The dots show corresponding results for alternative implementations of
each method.  On the left, switching to the ill-conditioned monomial basis for polynomial
least-squares cuts off the
exponential acuracy and also the exponential instability.  On the
right, switching to the well-conditioned Vandermonde with Arnoldi
basis for Fourier extension
introduces exponential accuracy and exponential instability.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Our statements about these last two methods, however, come with a big qualification, which
is illustrated in Figure~\ref{twobytwo}.
In fact, the difference
between Fourier extension and polynomial least-squares lies not in their
essence but in the fashion in which they are implemented.  If you implement
either one with a well-conditioned basis, then it is exponentially accurate
and exponentially unstable.  This is what we have done with the polynomial least-squares
method, which uses the well-conditioned basis of Chebyshev polynomials.  The
Fourier extension method, on the other hand, was implemented with
the ill-conditioned basis of
complex exponentials $\exp(i\pi k x/2)$.  In an ill-conditioned basis like this, high
accuracy will require huge coefficient vectors~\cite{fna1,fna2,ds}, but rounding errors prevent
their computation in floating point arithmetic through the mechanism of
matrices whose condition numbers are unable to grow bigger than
$O((\varepsilon_{\hbox{\scriptsize\rm machine}}^{})^{-1})$.
It is these rounding errors that make our
implementation of Fourier extension stable.  Re-implemented
via Vandermonde with Arnoldi~\cite{vander}, as shown in Figure~\ref{twobytwo},
it becomes exponentially accurate and exponentially unstable.
Conversely, we can implement polynomial least-squares with the exponentially
ill-conditioned monomial basis instead of Chebyshev polynomials.
Because of rounding errors, it then loses its its exponential
accuracy and its exponential instability, as also shown in Figure~\ref{twobytwo}.

Finally, what about AAA?
The experiments suggest it is neither exponentially
accurate nor exponentially unstable.
Insofar as the impossibility theorem is concerned,
there is no inconsistency. Still, what is the mechanism?
In Figure 3.1 we have highlighted the last value of $n$
for which AAA interpolates the data.
In these and many other examples,
that value is very small. Afterwards,
AAA favors closer fits to the data over increasing degrees
of rational approximation, and this has the familiar effect
of oversampling. Yet, owing to its nonlinear nature,
AAA is free to vary the oversampling factor---and convergence
rates along with it---depending on the data and on the chosen tolerance.

The stability of AAA also stems from the representation
of rational functions in barycentric form, which is discussed
in the original AAA paper~\cite{aaa}.

\section{Discussion}

Although we have emphasized just the behavior on $[-1,1]$,
it is well known that rational approximants have good properties of
analytic continuation, beyond the original approximation set.
The AAA method certainly partakes of this advantageous behavior.
For example, Figure~\ref{fig5} shows the approximation of Figure~\ref{fig1} again
($f(x) = e^x/\sqrt{1+9x^2}$ sampled at $50$ equispaced points in $[-1,1]$), but now evaluated
in the complex plane.  There are many digits of accuracy far from the
approximation domain $[-1,1]$.  This is numerical analytic continuation, and the
other methods we have compared against have no such capabilities.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\vspace*{28pt}
\includegraphics[scale=.7]{fig5}
\caption{\label{fig5}The AAA approximation of Figure~$\ref{fig1}$
extended into the complex plane.  The dots are the poles of the rational
approximant, and the curves are level curves of the error $|f(z)-r(z)|$
with levels (from outside in) $10^{-2}, 10^{-4},\dots, 10^{-14}$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Another impressive feature of rational approximation is its ability to
handle sampling grids with missing data without much loss of accuracy.
A striking illustration of this effect is presented in Figure~2 of~\cite{wdt}.

The AAA algorithm, as implemented in Chebfun, has a number of adjustable
features.  We have bypassed all these, avoiding both the ``cleanup''
procedure and the Lawson iteration~\cite{aaa} (which is not normally invoked
in any case, by default).

One of the drawbacks of AAA approximation is that although it is
extremely fast at lower degrees, say, $d< 100$, it slows down
for higher degrees: the complexity is $O(m d^{\kern .8pt 3})$, where $m$ is
the size of the sample set and $d$ is the degree.  For most applications,
we have in mind a regime of problems with $d<100$.
None of the examples shown in this paper come close to this limit.
(With the current Chebfun code, one could write for example
\verb|aaa(F,X,'mmax',200,'cleanup','off','lawson',0)|.)

Our discussion has assumed that the data $f(x_k)$ are accurate samples
of a smooth function, the only errors being rounding errors down at the relative level of
machine precision, around $10^{-16}$.  The Chebfun default tolerance
of $10^{-13}$ was set with this error level in mind.
To handle data contaminated by noise at a higher level $\varepsilon$, we
recommend running AAA with its tolerance parameter \verb|'tol'| set to one or two orders
of magnitude greater than $\varepsilon$.
For unknown noise levels, it should be possible to devise adaptive methods based
on apparent convergence rates---detecting the bend in an L-shaped curve---but we
have not pursued this.  Another approach to dealing with noise in rational approximation
is to combine AAA fitting
in space with calculations related to Prony's method in Fourier space, as advocated
by Wilber, Damle, and Townsend~\cite{wdt}.

Most of the methods we have discussed are linear, but AAA is not.  This
raises the question, will it do as well for a truly complicated ``arbitrary'' function
as it has done for the functions with relatively simple properties we have
examined?  As a check of its performance in such a setting, Figure~\ref{all6} repeats
Figure~\ref{ambercurves}, but now for the function $f$ consisting of the
sum of all six test functions we have considered:
$f_A^{},$ $f_B^{},$ $f_C^{},$ $f_D^{},$ $f_E^{},$ and $A$.
As usual, AAA outperforms the other methods, but blips in
the convergence curve  at $n=200$ and $264$ highlight that it comes with no guarantees.
Both blips correspond to cases where ``bad poles'' have turned up in
the approximation interval $[-1,1]$.
These problems are related to rounding errors, as can be confirmed
by an implementation in extended precision arithmetic as in Figure~\ref{julia}
or by simply raising the AAA convergence tolerance to $10^{-11}$.
It does seem that further research about avoiding unwanted poles in
AAA approximation is called for, but fortunately, in a
practical setting, such poles are
immediately detectable and thus pose no risk of inaccuracy
without warning to the user.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\kern 8pt
\includegraphics[scale=.9]{all6}
\caption{\label{all6}AAA approximation of the function $f(x)$ defined
as the sum of all six functions
$f_A^{},$ $f_B^{},$ $f_C^{},$ $f_D^{},$ $f_E^{},$ and $A$ considered in
this paper.  As usual, AAA mostly outperforms the other methods, but there
are blips at $n=200$ and $n=264$ corresponding to poles in the
approximation interval $[-1,1]$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section*{Acknowledgments}
We are grateful for helpful suggestions from
John Boyd, Bengt Fornberg, Karl Meerbergen, Yuji Nakatsukasa,
and Olivier S\`ete.

\section*{Appendix: MATLAB/Chebfun code for Figure 2}

\indent~~
\vspace{10pt}

{\footnotesize
\verbatiminput{tests.m}
\par
}

AAA interpolation of equispaced data


Fractional Laplacian, homogeneous Sobolev spaces and their realizations

Abstract: We study the fractional Laplacian and the homogeneous Sobolev spaces on R^d , by considering two definitions that are both considered classical. We compare these different definitions, and show how they are related by providing an explicit correspondence between these two spaces, and show that they admit the same representation. Along the way we also prove some properties of the fractional Laplacian.

\section{Introduction and statement of the main results}

The goal of this paper is to clarify a point that in our opinion has
been overlooked in the literature.
Classically, the homogeneous Sobolev
spaces and the fractional Laplacian
are defined in two different ways.
In one case, we consider the Laplacian $\Delta$
as densely defined, self-adjoint and
positive on $L^2({\mathbb R}^d)$, and following Komatsu \cite{Komatsu}
it is possible to define the fractional powers $\Delta^{s/2}$ by means
of the spectral theorem, $s>0$.
 Denoting by ${\mathcal S}$  the space of Schwartz functions, one observes that
 for $p\in(1,\infty)$,
 $\| \Delta^{s/2} \varphi\|_{L^p({\mathbb R}^n)}$ is a norm on ${\mathcal S}$.  The
 {\em homogeneous Sobolev space}  is the space
$\dot{W}^{s,p}$  defined as the closure of ${\mathcal S}$ in such a
norm.
The second definition is modelled on the classical Littlewood--Paley
decomposition
 of function spaces (see details below) and gives rise to
an operator, that we will denote by $\dot\Delta^{s/2}$, acting on spaces
of tempered distributions {\em modulo polynomials}.

Below, we describe the latter approach and show
how these two definitions are related to each other,  by showing that
they admit the same,
explicit realization.    We mention that
the analysis involved by the fractional Laplacian $\Delta^s$ has drawn
great interest in the latest years, beginning with the groundbreaking papers
\cite{Caffarelli,hitchhiker}, see also the recent papers
\cite{bourdaud2,bourdaud3,brasco-salort,Kwasnicki}.   We also mention that we were led to consider this
problem while working on spaces of entire functions of exponential
type whose fractional Laplacian is $L^p$ on the real line, \cite{MPS-Bernstein}.
\medskip

Let ${\mathcal S}$ denote the space of Schwartz functions,
${\mathcal S}'$ denote the space of tempered
distributions.  We denote by ${\mathbb N}_0$ the set of nonnegative integers
and
by  ${\mathcal P}_k$ be the set of all polynomials of $d$-real
variables of degree $\le k$, with $k\in{\mathbb N}_0$.  We also set
${\mathcal P}_\infty=\bigcup_{k=0}^{+\infty} {\mathcal P}_k$, the collection of all
polynomials. We also write
$\overline{\mathbb N}={\mathbb N}_0\bigcup\{+\infty\}$.

For $k\in\overline{\mathbb N}$,  we consider the equivalence relations  in ${\mathcal S}'$
$$
f\sim_k g \Longleftrightarrow f-g\in {\mathcal P}_k
$$
and we denote by ${\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_k$ the space of tempered distribution modulo
polynomials in ${\mathcal P}_k$, that is, the space of the equivalence classes with
respect the equivalence relation $\sim_k$.  If $u\in{\mathcal S}'$ we denote by
$[u]_k$ its equivalent class in ${\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_k$.
For $k\in {\mathbb N}_0$, we denote by ${\mathcal S}_k$
the space of all Schwartz functions $\varphi$ such that
$$
\int x^\gamma\varphi(x)\, dx=0
$$
for any multi-index $\gamma\in{\mathbb N}^d$ with $|\gamma|\le k$ and set
${\mathcal S}_\infty =\bigcap_{k=0}^{+\infty} {\mathcal S}_k$.
Each space ${\mathcal S}_k$, $k\in \overline{\mathbb N}$ is a subspace
of ${\mathcal S}$ that
inherits the same topology of ${\mathcal S}$. Moreover, it is easy to see that
$$
\big({\mathcal S}_k\big)'={\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_k \,.
$$

For $p\in[1,\infty]$ we denote by  $L^p({\mathbb R}^d)$ (or, simply by
$L^p$) the standard Lebesgue space on ${\mathbb R}^d$ and we write
$$
\|f\|_{L^p}^p=\int |f(x)|^p\, dx \,,
$$
if $p<\infty$, and $\|f\|_{L^\infty}
=\operatorname{ess}\sup_{x\in{\mathbb R}^d} |f(x)|$.

If $f\in L^1({\mathbb R}^d)$ we define the Fourier transform
$$
\hat f (\xi) = \int f(x) e^{-2\pi i x\xi}\, dx \,.
$$
The Fourier transform induces a surjective isomorphism
${\mathcal F}:{\mathcal S}\to{\mathcal S}$ and
then
it extends to a unitary operator ${\mathcal F}: L^2\to
L^2$ and to a surjective  isomorphism ${\mathcal F}:{\mathcal S}'\to{\mathcal S}'$.
For $u\in{\mathcal S}'$, we shall also write $\widecheck u $ to denote ${\mathcal F}^{-1} u$.

It is important  here to observe that if $\varphi\in{\mathcal S}_\infty$, then for
all $\tau\in{\mathbb R}$,
${\mathcal F}(|\cdot|^\tau\widecheck\varphi)\in {\mathcal S}_\infty$ as well,  see e.g.
\cite{Triebel,Grafakos}.
\medskip

\subsection{The
fractional Laplacian $\dot\Delta^{s/2}$ and the homogeneous
Sobolev spaces $\dot{L}^p_s$}
We now recall the perhaps most standard
definition of the fractional powers of the Laplacian and of the homogeneous
Sobolev spaces.  This material is classical and well known, see e.g.
\cite{Triebel,Grafakos}.

We now have the following definition.
\begin{defn}\label{defn-homo-lap} {\rm
Let  $s>0$.  For $\varphi\in {\mathcal S}_\infty$, we define the
{\em fractional Laplacian} of $\varphi$ as
$
\dot{\Delta}^{s/2} \varphi ={\mathcal F}^{-1}(|\cdot|^{s}\widehat \varphi) \,.
$
}
\end{defn}

The next lemma follows from the arguments in \cite[Chapter
1]{Grafakos}, or \cite[5.1.2]{Triebel}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem1}
The operator
$$
\dot{\Delta}^{s/2} :{\mathcal S}_\infty\to {\mathcal S}_\infty
$$
is a surjective isomorphism with inverse
$$
{\mathcal I}_s \varphi= {\mathcal F}^{-1} \big(|\xi|^{-s}\widehat\varphi\big) \,.
$$
\end{lem}

Next,
given $[u]\in {\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_\infty$ we define another distribution in
${\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_\infty$ by setting for all $\varphi\in{\mathcal S}_\infty$
\begin{equation}\label{distribution}
\big\langle{\mathcal F}^{-1}(|\cdot|^s\widehat u),\varphi\big\rangle
:=\big\langle u,{\mathcal F}(|\cdot|^s\widecheck \varphi)\big\rangle,
\end{equation}
where, with an abuse of notation,\footnote{We warn the reader that, we
  shall denote with the same symbol $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ different
  pairings of duality, such as ${\mathcal S}$ and ${\mathcal S}'$, ${\mathcal S}_\infty$ and
  ${\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_\infty$,
$L^p$ and $L^{p'}$,
  etc. The actual pairing of duality should be clear from the context
  and there should not be any confusion.}   we denote  by $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$
also
the  pairing of duality between ${\mathcal S}_\infty$ and ${\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_\infty$.
We remark that, clearly, the terms of both sides of
 \eqref{distribution} are independent of the choice of the
 representative in $[u]$.
The fact that \eqref{distribution} defines
a well-defined distribution follows at once from Lemma \ref{lem1}.

Then, we extend the  definition of $\dot{\Delta}^{s/2}$ to
$({\mathcal S}_\infty)'={\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_\infty$.
\begin{defn}\label{defn-frac-lap-eq-classes} {\rm
We define the operator
$$
\dot{\Delta}^{s/2}: {\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_\infty\to {\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_\infty
$$
by setting, for any $[u]\in {\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_\infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{frac-lapl}
\dot{\Delta}^{s/2}[u] ={\mathcal F}^{-1}(|\cdot|^{s}\widehat u) \,,
\end{equation}
 and we call it
the   fractional Laplacian (of
order $s$) of $[u]$.
}
\end{defn}

Since the term on the right hand side is independent of the choice of
the representative in $[u]$, we may simply write
$[\dot{\Delta}^{s/2}u]$ in place of $[\dot{\Delta}^{s/2}[u]]$.

\begin{remark}\label{remark-Laplacians}{\em
We stress the fact that the terminology ``homogeneous Laplacian'' is
non-standard, and that such operator is typically simply called
fractional Laplacian. However,  one of the main goals of the present
paper is to consider the two standard different definitions of the
fractional Laplacian and of the corresponding homogeneous Sobolev
spaces and to study how they are related to each other.
 Thus, we need to
distinguish them, and we do so by introducing such terminology.
}
\end{remark}

For $1<p<\infty$, we define $\dot{L}^p$ as the space of all
elements in ${\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_\infty$ such that in every equivalence class there is a
representative that belongs to $L^p$, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{def-hom-Lp}
\dot{L}^p = \Big\{ [u]\in {\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_\infty:\, \|[u]\|_{\dot L^p}^p
:=\inf_{P\in{\mathcal P}_\infty}  \|u+P\|_{L^p}^{p} <+\infty \Big\} \,.
\end{equation}
Clearly, if $[u]\in \dot{L}^p$, the
 representative of $[u]$ in $L^p$ is unique.

We observe that, since ${\mathcal S}_\infty$ is dense in $L^p$ for all
$p\in[1,+\infty)$, see Lemma \ref{added-lem} below, we have that
$\dot\Delta^{s/2}u \in \dot L^p$, $p\in(1,\infty)$, if (and only if) the
mapping
$$
{\mathcal S}_\infty\ni \psi \mapsto \langle u, \dot\Delta^{s/2} \psi\rangle
$$
is bounded in the $L^{p'}$-norm.  In fact, in this case, there exists a unique $g\in
L^p$ such that
$ \langle u, \dot\Delta^{s/2} \psi\rangle = \langle g, \psi\rangle$ for all
$\psi\in{\mathcal S}_\infty$ and we set
$$
\dot\Delta^{s/2} u = [g]\,.
$$
\medskip

Next, notice that  by definition $\dot{\Delta}^{s/2} P =0$ for any
polynomial $P$.
The homogeneous Sobolev spaces $\dot{L}^p_s$ are defined as
follows.

\begin{defn}\label{defn-hom-sob-space} {\rm
 Let $s>0$  and let $1<p<\infty$. Then, the homogeneous
 Sobolev space $\dot{L}^p_s$ is defined as
$$
\dot{L}^p_s = \big\{
[f]\in{\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_\infty:\, \dot{\Delta}^{s/2}f
\in \dot L^p
\big\}\,,
$$
 and we set
 \begin{equation}\label{hom-sob-norm}
  \|f\|^p_{\dot{L}^p_s}=\|\dot{\Delta}^{s/2}f\|_{\dot{L}^p} \,.
 \end{equation} \medskip
}
\end{defn}

Notice that, because of \eqref{def-hom-Lp}, equation \eqref{hom-sob-norm}
defines a norm on $\dot{L}^p_s$.  Thus,  the homogeneous
 Sobolev space $\dot{L}^p_s$ is a space of  equivalent classes in ${\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_\infty$.\medskip

\subsection{Fractional powers of $\Delta$ and the homogeneous Sobolev
  spaces ${\dot{W}}^{s,p}$}

We now describe more in details the other definition of the homogeneous Sobolev
  spaces.
As me mentioned,
the operator $\Delta$ is densely defined, self-adjoint and
positive on $L^2({\mathbb R}^d)$, and following Komatsu \cite{Komatsu}
it is possible to define the fractional powers $\Delta^{\alpha/2}$ for
all $\alpha\in{\mathbb C}$, with $\operatorname{Re}}%{\, \text{\rm Re\,}\alpha>0$.  Here we restrict our
attention to the case $\alpha=s>0$.
For $\varphi\in{\mathcal S}$,
by the spectral theorem  we have that
\begin{equation}\label{frac-lapl-def2}
\Delta^{s/2} \varphi  ={\mathcal F}^{-1}(|\cdot|^s \widehat \varphi) \,.
\end{equation}

We now have a simple lemma to describe the basic properties of
the action of $\Delta^{s/2}$ on ${\mathcal S}$.

\begin{lem}\label{added-lem}
 Let $s>0$ and $p\in(1,\infty)$.  The following properties
  hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] ${\mathcal S}_\infty$ is dense in $L^p$;
\item[(ii)] for every $\varphi\in{\mathcal S}$, $\Delta^{s/2}\varphi\in L^p$;\smallskip
\item[(iii)] $\|\Delta^{s/2}\varphi\|_{L^p}$ is a norm on ${\mathcal S}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}

\proof
(i) is   well-known and also easy to prove directly.  For (ii), for
$\varphi\in{\mathcal S}$, write  $\Delta^{s/2}\varphi = \Delta^{s/2}(I+\Delta)^{-M}
(I+\delta)^M\varphi$.  If $M>s$ it is easy to check that
$\Delta^{s/2}(I+\Delta)^{-M}$ is a Fourier multiplier satisfying
Mihlin--H\"ormander condition (see \cite[Theorem
5.2.7]{Grafakos-cl}), hence bounded on $L^p$,
$p\in(1,\infty)$. Since $(I+\delta)^M\varphi\in L^p$ for all $p$'s, (ii)
follows. In order to prove (iii), we only need to observe that if
$\varphi\in{\mathcal S}$ and
$(I+\Delta)^M\varphi=0$, then $\widehat\varphi$ is a distribution supported at
the origin, hence $\varphi=0$.
\qed \medskip

Then, we have the following  definition.
\begin{defn}\label{dotWps-def}{\rm
For $1<p<\infty$ and $s>0$ we define ${\dot{W}}^{s,p}$, also
called the {\em homogeneous Sobolev space} as
the closure of ${\mathcal S}$
with respect to  the norm  $\|\Delta^{s/2} \varphi\|_{L^p}$.  More
precisely, given the equivalent relation on the space of $L^p$-Cauchy
sequences of Schwartz functions,
$\{ \varphi_n\}\sim \{ \psi_n\} $ if  $\Delta^{s/2}(\varphi_n-\psi_n)\to 0$ as $n\to+\infty$, and
$[\{ \varphi_n\}]$ denote the equivalent classes, then
\begin{multline}
{\dot{W}}^{s,p}
= \Big\{ \big[\{\varphi_n\}\big]: \ \{
\varphi_n\}\subseteq{\mathcal S},\, \{ \Delta^{s/2}\varphi_n\} \text{\ is a Cauchy
sequence in\ } L^p, \\
\text{with }
\big\| \big[\{\varphi_n\}\big]\big\|_{{\dot{W}}^{s,p}} = \lim_{n\to+\infty}
\| \Delta^{s.2} \varphi_n \|_{L^p}
\Big\}\,.\label{dotWps-eq}
\end{multline}
}
\end{defn}

 If $\{ \Delta^{s/2}\varphi_n\}$ is  a
Cauchy
sequences in $L^p$, and we denote by $f$ its limit, we set
$$
\|f\|_{{\dot{W}}^{s,p}} = \lim_{n\to+\infty} \|
\Delta^{s/2}\varphi_n\|_{L^p} \,. \medskip
$$

We remark that it is equivalent to define ${\dot{W}}^{s,p}$
as the closure of the ${\mathcal C}^\infty$ functions with compact support,
space that we denote by ${\mathcal C}^\infty_c$, with respect to the same norm
$\|\Delta^{s/2} \varphi\|_{L^p}$.
\medskip

Thus, we have described two different notions of the fractional
Laplacian, $\dot\Delta^{s/2}$ and $\Delta^{s/2}$, that in particular
are  defined and taking values
on completely different spaces.  Both these
notions can be considered as ``classical''.  Moreover, we have
described two different scales $\dot{L}^p_s$ and $\dot{W}^{s,p}$ of
homogeneous Sobolev spaces, for $s>0$ and $p\in(1,\infty)$.

The main goals of this note are two.  The first one
is to describe the spaces ${\dot{W}}^{s,p}$
explicitly and obtain a realization of them as space of functions
(see below).
The  second one is to  show how
the homogeneous Sobolev spaces ${\dot{W}}^{s,p}$ and $\dot{L}^p_s$ are
related to each other, providing in fact an explicit one-to-one and
onto correspondence between them.
\medskip

Finally, observe that, if $\varphi\in{\mathcal S}$, then $\dot{\Delta}^{s/2}\varphi =
[\Delta^{s/2}\varphi]_\infty$.
\medskip

\subsection{The realization spaces $E^{s,p}$}

Following G. Bourdaud \cite{Bourdaud, bourdaud2, bourdaud3}, if $k\in\overline{\mathbb N}$ and
$\dot{X}$ is a given  subspace  of
${\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_k$ which is a Banach space, such that the natural inclusion of
$\dot{X}$ into ${\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_k$ is continuous,
we call {\em realization} of $\dot{X}$ a subspace $E$ of ${\mathcal S}'$ such
that there exists a bijective linear map
$$
R: \dot{X}\to E
$$
such that $\big[ R[u] \big] = [u]$ for every $[u]\in\dot{X}$.
We endow $E$ of the norm given by $\| R[u]\|_E = \| [u] \|_{\dot{X}}$.
Obviously, $E$ becomes a Banach space with such norm.

Thus, a realization of
$\dot{L}^p_s$  is a space $E$ of tempered distributions
 such that for each $f\in  E$, the equivalent  class
modulo polynomials  $[f]$ of $f$ is in $\dot{L}^p_s$ and conversely, for each
$[f]\in\dot{L}^p_s$ there exists a unique $\tilde f\in[f]$ such that
$\tilde f\in E$, and such correspondence
is an isometry.  Our first
main result is that the spaces $E^{s,p}$ defined below are a realization of $\dot{W}^{s,p}$,
for $p\in(1,+\infty)$, $s>0$.
The spaces are also a realization of the spaces $\dot{L}^p_s$, as was
indicated
already in \cite{Bourdaud, bourdaud2}, and here we give a proof of this
latter fact.  As a consequence, we obtain a precise correspondence between
the spaces  $\dot{W}^{s,p}$ and $\dot{L}^p_s$.

In order to describe such realization spaces $E^{s,p}$ we
need to recall the definition of $\operatorname{BMO}$ and of the
homogeneous Lipschitz spaces
$\dot{\Lambda}^s$, for $s>0$.   We begin with the latter one.
For $s>0$ we write $\lfloor s \rfloor$
to denote its integer part.

\begin{defn}\label{diff-op-def}{\rm
The
difference operators $D^k_h$
of increment
$h\in{\mathbb R}^d\setminus\{0\}$ and of order  $k\in{\mathbb N}$
are defined as follows.
If $k=1$, we write
$D_h$ in place of $D_h^1$, is
$D_h f(x)=f(x+h)-f(x)$,
 and
then inductively, for $k=2,3,\dots$
$$
D_h^k f(x)=D_h \big[ D_h^{k-1}f\big](x)\,.
$$
}
\end{defn}

For a non-negative integer $m$, we denote by ${\mathcal C}^m$ the space of
continuously differentiable functions of order $m$.

We recall the following well-known facts, see \cite[6.3.1]{Grafakos}.
\begin{prop}\label{elem-prop-finite-diff}

{\rm (i)} For  $k=2,3,\dots$ we have the explicit expression
$$
D_h^k f(x) =\sum_{j=0}^k (-1)^{k-j} \begin{pmatrix} k\\
  j \end{pmatrix} f(x+jh)\,.
$$

{\rm (ii)} If $f\in {\mathcal C}({\mathbb R}^d)$ is  such that
  $D_h^kf(x)=0$ for all $x,h\in{\mathbb R}^d$, $h\neq0$, then $f$ is a
  polynomial of degree at most $k-1$, and conversely,  $D_h^kf(x)=0$
  for all polynomials of of degree  $\le k-1$.
\end{prop}
\medskip

\begin{defn}{\rm
Let
$\gamma>0$. We define the {\em homogeneous Lipschitz space}
$\dot{\Lambda}^\gamma$ as
$$
\dot{\Lambda}^\gamma = \Big\{ [f]\in {\mathcal C}/{\mathcal P}_{\lfloor \gamma
  \rfloor}\,  :\,
\| f\|_{\dot{\Lambda}^\gamma} := \sup_{x,h\in{\mathbb R},\,  h\neq0}
\frac{|D_h^{\lfloor \gamma \rfloor +1} f(x)|}{|h|^\gamma} <+\infty \Big\}\,.
$$
}
\end{defn}

We remark that, for all $\gamma>0$,
if   $[f]_{\lfloor
  \gamma\rfloor}\in \dot{\Lambda}^\gamma$, then  $f$ is a function of moderate growth, so
that $\dot{\Lambda}^\gamma \subseteq {\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_{\lfloor \gamma
  \rfloor}$.  Moreover,
$f$ is in ${\mathcal C}^{\lfloor
  \gamma\rfloor}$.
For these and other properties of Lipschitz spaces, see
e.g. \cite{Krantz-Lipschitz-paper,Triebel,Grafakos}. \medskip

Next, we introduce the Sobolev-$\operatorname{BMO}$ spaces.
\begin{defn}{\rm
The space $\operatorname{BMO}$ is the space of locally integrable
functions, modulo constants such that
$$
\| f\|_{\operatorname{BMO}}:= \sup_{x\in{\mathbb R}^d} \sup_{r>0} \frac{1}{|B_r|} \int_{B_r(x)}
  |f(y)-f_{B_r}|\, dy <+\infty \,.
$$
where $B_r(x)=B_r$ denotes the ball centered at $x$ of radius $r>0$,
$|B_r|$ its measure, and $f_{B_r}$ the average of $f$ over $B_r(x)$.

For $k=1,2,\dots$, we define the Sobolev-$\operatorname{BMO}$ space as
$$
S_k(\operatorname{BMO}) = \big\{ f\in{\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_k:\, \partial_x^\alpha f \in\operatorname{BMO}\ \text{for
} |\alpha|=k
\big\} \,,
$$
and set
$$
\| f\|_{S_k(\operatorname{BMO})} = \sum_{|\alpha|=k} \| \partial^\alpha f\|_{\operatorname{BMO}} \,.
$$
}
\end{defn}

\begin{defn}{\rm
Given $f\in{\mathcal S}'$,  if there
exists a sequence $\{\varphi_n\}\subseteq{\mathcal S}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\tiny $\bullet$}] $\varphi_n\to f$ in ${\mathcal S}'$,
\item[{\tiny $\bullet$}] $\{ \Delta^{s/2} \varphi_n\}$ is a Cauchy
  sequence in $L^p({\mathbb R}^d)$,
\end{itemize}
then we say that $\Delta^{s/2} f$ is defined as  the $L^p$-limit of
$\{\Delta^{s/2} \varphi_n\}$ and  we set $\| \Delta^{s/2} f \|_{L^p}=\lim_{n\to+\infty} \|
\Delta^{s/2} \varphi_n\|_{L^p}$.
}
\end{defn}

\begin{remark}\label{convergence-rem}{\rm
We observe that the definition is well-given since if
$\{\varphi_n\},\{\psi_n\}\subseteq{\mathcal S}$,  are two sequences such that
$\varphi_n,\psi_n\to f$ in ${\mathcal S}'$ and
$\{\Delta^{s/2} \varphi_n\}, \{\Delta^{s/2} \psi_n\}$ are both  Cauchy in
$L^p$, then for every $\eta\in{\mathcal S}_\infty$,
$$
\langle \Delta^{s/2} \varphi_n -\Delta^{s/2} \psi_n, \eta\rangle =
\langle \varphi_n -\psi_n, \Delta^{s/2} \eta\rangle \to 0
\,
$$
as $n\to\infty$.  Since ${\mathcal S}_\infty$ is dense in $L^p$,
$\{\Delta^{s/2} \varphi_n\}, \{\Delta^{s/2} \psi_n\}$ have the same
$L^p$-limit.
}
\end{remark}
\medskip

We now are ready to define the spaces $E^{s,p}$ that we will
show to be the realization spaces for ${\dot{W}}^{s,p}$.
For a sufficiently smooth function $f$, we denote by $P_{f;m;x_0}$ the
Taylor polynomial of $f$ of degree $m\in{\mathbb N}_0$ at $x_0\in{\mathbb R}^d$.

\begin{defn}\label{Esp-def}{\rm For $s>0$ and $p\in(1,+\infty)$, we define the
  spaces $E^{s,p}$ as follows.

{\rm  (i)} Let $0<s<\frac dp$, and let $p^*\in(1,\infty)$ given by
$ \frac{1}{p^*}=\frac1p -\frac sd$.
Then, we define
 $$
E^{s.p}=\big\{f\in L^{p^*}:\,
\| f\|_{E^{s,p}} := \|\Delta^{s/2} f\|_{L^p}<+\infty \big\} \,.
 $$

{\rm (ii)}  Let $s>d/p$, $s-d/p\not\in{\mathbb N}$ and let
 $m=\lfloor s-d/p \rfloor$. Then, we define
$$
E^{s.p}
=\Big\{
f\in\dot{\Lambda}^{s-\frac dp}:\,
\ P_{f;m;0}=0\,,\
 \| f\|_{E^{s,p}} := \|\Delta^{s/2} f\|_{L^p} <+\infty\, \Big\}\,.
$$

{\rm (iii)} Let $s-d/p\in{\mathbb N}$ and set $m=\lfloor s-d/p \rfloor$.
Let $B$   be a fixed ball in ${\mathbb R}^d$. Then, if $m=0$,
$$
E^{s.p}
=\Big\{
f\in \operatorname{BMO}:
f_B=0, \quad
 \, \| f\|_{E^{s,p}} :=\| \Delta^{s/2} f\|_{L^p}<+\infty\, \Big\}\,,
$$
while, if $m\ge1$,
 \begin{multline*}
E^{s.p}
=\Big\{
f\in S_m(\operatorname{BMO}) \cap{\mathcal C}^{m-1}:
{\rm (i)}\,  \ P_{f;m-1;0}=0\,,\
  {\rm (ii)} \, (\partial_x^\alpha  f )_B=0\, \quad\text{for }
  |\alpha|=m\,,\\
 {\rm (iii)} \, \| f\|_{E^{s,p}} :=\| \Delta^{s/2} f\|_{L^p}<+\infty\, \Big\}\,.
\end{multline*}
}
\end{defn}

\subsection{Littlewood--Paley decomposition}
In order to state our second main result we need the Littlewood--Paley
decomposition of $\dot{L}^p_s$, for whose details
see e.g. to
 \cite[6.2.2]{Grafakos}.
Let $\eta\in {\mathcal C}^\infty_c({\mathbb R}^d)$ such that $\operatorname{supp}\eta\subseteq
\{\xi:\, 1/2\le |\xi|\le 2\}$, identically $1$ on the annulus
$\{\xi:\, 1\le|\xi|\le3/2\}$ and such that
$$
\sum_{j\in{\mathbb Z}}\eta(2^{-j}\xi)=1 \,, \qquad\qquad\qquad
\xi\in{\mathbb R}^d\backslash \{0\} \,.
$$
For $j\in{\mathbb Z}$ we set $\eta_j = \eta(2^{-j}\cdot)$  and
for  $f\in{\mathcal S}'$  we define\footnote{Classically, these operators are
  denoted by $\Delta_j$.  Given the recurrent appearance of
$\Delta$ in this paper, we decided to use the notation $M_j$ instead.}
$$
M_j f={\mathcal F}^{-1}(\eta_j\widehat f).
$$
We observe that, due to the support conditions of the $\eta_j$'s,
for all $j,k\in{\mathbb Z}$ we
have that
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\tiny $\bullet$}] $M_j\le (M_{j-1}+M_j+M_{j+1})M_j\le 3M_j$;
\item[{\tiny $\bullet$}] $M_kM_j=0$ if $|k-j|>1$.
\end{itemize}

Then, $M_j f=0$ for any $f\in{\mathcal P}_\infty$, therefore the operators
$M_j$ are well-defined on ${\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_\infty$ and taking values in ${\mathcal S}'$, as
it is immediate to check. Thus, for simplicity of notation, we write
$M_ju$ instead of $M_j [u]_\infty$, and
observe that
\begin{equation}\label{u-dec-S'}
[u]_\infty  =\sum_{j\in{\mathbb Z}} [M_ju]_\infty\,,
\end{equation}
where the convergence is in
${\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_\infty$.
\begin{comment}
Furthermore, we recall that for $u\in
{\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_\infty$,
$M_j u$ is entire function of exponential type, and satisfies the
estimate\CR \footnote{Check and prove?} \color{black}
\begin{equation}\label{Delta-j-stima1}
\| M_j u\|_\infty \le C 2^{jd/p} \| M_j u\|_{L^p} \,.
\end{equation}
We also set $\widetilde{M}(u)= {\mathcal F}^{-1} \big( \tilde\eta
u)$.\CR\footnote{Non credo abbiamo bisogno di $\widetilde{M}$, n\`e
  del punto (2) nella Prop. sotto, cio\`e gli spazi di Sobolev
  inomogenei.} \color{black}
\end{comment}
Then, we have the following characterization of the spaces
$\dot{L}^p_s$, $\dot\operatorname{BMO}:=\operatorname{BMO}/{\mathcal P}_\infty$, and
$\dot\Lambda^\gamma$, respectively.

For $1<p<\infty$ and $s>0$, $[f]_\infty\in
\dot{L}^p_s$, if and only if  $\big(\sum_{j\in{\mathbb Z}} \big(2^{js}|M_j f|\big)^2\big)^{1/2}
\in L^p$ and
\begin{equation}\label{LP-charact-Lps}
\bigg\| \bigg(\sum_{j\in{\mathbb Z}} \big(2^{js}|M_j f|\big)^2\bigg)^{1/2}
\bigg\|_{L^p} \approx \|f\|_{\dot{L}^p_s} \,.
\end{equation}

It holds that $[f]_\infty\in\dot\operatorname{BMO}$ if and only if
$\big(\sum_{j\in{\mathbb Z}} |M_j f|^2\big)^{1/2}
\in L^\infty$ and in this case
\begin{equation}\label{LP-charact-BMO}
\sup_{x\in{\mathbb R}^d}  \bigg(\sum_{j\in{\mathbb Z}} |M_j f|^2\bigg)^{1/2}
\bigg\|_{L^p} \approx \|f\|_{\dot\operatorname{BMO}} \,.
\end{equation}

For $\gamma>0$, we have that $[f]_{\lfloor \gamma\rfloor}
\in {\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_{\lfloor \gamma\rfloor}$, we have
$[f]_{\lfloor \gamma\rfloor} \in
\dot\Lambda^\gamma$
if and only if  $\sup_{j\in{\mathbb Z}} 2^{j\gamma} \|M_j
f\|_\infty <+\infty$
and  we have
\begin{equation}\label{LP-charc-Lip}
\sup_{j\in{\mathbb Z}} 2^{j\gamma} \|M_j
f\|_\infty \approx \|f\|_{\dot\Lambda^\gamma} \,,
\end{equation}
see e.g. \cite[Theorem 6.3.6.]{Grafakos}
\medskip

\subsection{Statement of the main results}

Our first result describes explicitly the elements of
$\dot{W}^{s,p}$, $s>0$, $p\in(1,\infty)$.

\begin{theorem}\label{elements-Wspdot-charact}
Let $s>0$, $1<p<\infty$,
and let $\{\Delta^{s/2} \varphi_n\}$ be a Cauchy sequence in $L^p$, with
$\varphi_n\in{\mathcal S}$.
Then, the following properties hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] If $0<s<d/p$, then there exists a unique $g\in L^{p^*}$
  such that $\varphi_n\to g$ in $L^{p^*}$ as $n\to+\infty$,
where $\frac{1}{p^*} = \frac1p   -\frac sd$.\smallskip
\item[(ii)] If $s-d/p=m\in{\mathbb N}_0$, then there exists
  a unique $g\in S_m(\operatorname{BMO})$
  such that $[\varphi_n]_m\to [g]_m$  in $ S_m(\operatorname{BMO})$ as $n\to+\infty$.\smallskip
\item[(iii)] If $s>d/p$ and $s-d/p\not\in{\mathbb N}$,
then there exists
  a unique $g\in \dot\Lambda^{s-d/p}$
  such that $[\varphi_n]_m\to [g]_m$  in
$\dot\Lambda^{s-d/p}$ as $n\to+\infty$,  where $m=\lfloor s-d/p \rfloor$.
\end{itemize}
In particular, $\dot{W}^{s,p}$ is a space of functions if $s<d/p$,
while
$\dot{W}^{s,p}\subseteq{\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_m$, where $m=\lfloor s-d/p \rfloor$,
if $s\ge d/p$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{theorem}\label{main-thm-realization-Wsp-dot}
For $s>0$ and $p\in(1,\infty)$, the spaces $E^{s,p}$ are realization
spaces of ${\dot{W}}^{s,p}$.  More precisely, the space
$\dot{W}^{s,p}$ can be identified with a subspace of ${\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_m$,
where $m=\lfloor s-d/p \rfloor$, and for each $[u]_m\in
\dot{W}^{s,p}$ there exists a unique $f\in [u]_m\cap E^{s,p}$ and
such that
$$
\|\Delta^{s/2} f\|_{L^p} = \| [u]_m\|_{{\dot{W}}^{s,p}} \,.
$$
\end{theorem}

Recall that, given $B=B(x_0,r)$ a ball in ${\mathbb R}^d$, and an locally integrable
function $f$,
we denote by $f_B$ the
average of $f$ over $B$.
\begin{theorem}\label{main-thm-realization-Lps-dot}
Let $s>0$, $1<p<\infty$.  Then the following properties hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] If $0<s<d/p$, given $[u]_\infty\in \dot{L}^p_s$ there exists a
  unique $f\in [u]_\infty$ and such that $f\in E^{s,p}$, and it is
  given by
$$
f = \sum_{j\in{\mathbb Z}} M_j u \,,
$$
where the convergence is in
$L^{p^*}$.
\item[(ii)] If $s-d/p=m\in{\mathbb N}_0$,
let $B=B(x_0,r)$ be any fixed ball in ${\mathbb R}^d$.
Then, if $m=0$, given
  $[u]_\infty\in \dot{L}^p_s$ consider $f\in [u]_\infty$
  given by
\begin{equation}\label{the-series-2.0}
f= f_0+f_1 - (f_0+f_1)_B := \sum_{j\le0} \big(
M_j u - M_ju(0) \big) +  \sum_{j\ge1}
M_j u - (f_0+f_1)_B
 \,,
\end{equation}
where the first series converges uniformly on compact subsets of
${\mathbb R}^d$, while the second one in the $\operatorname{BMO}$-norm.
Then,  $f\in\operatorname{BMO}$ with $f_B=0$, hence $f\in E^{s,p}$.

If $s-d/p=m\in{\mathbb N}$, $m\ge1$, given $[u]_\infty\in \dot{L}^p_s$, let
 \begin{equation}\label{the-series-2.m}
f= f_0+f_1 - (f_0+f_1)_B := \sum_{j\le0} \big(
M_j u - P_{M_ju;m;0} \big) +  \sum_{j\ge1}
M_j u - (f_0+f_1)_B
 \,,
\end{equation}
where the both series converge uniformly on compact subsets of
${\mathbb R}^d$, together with all derivatives up to order $m-1$.
Then, $f\in E^{s,p}$, in particular,
$f\in S_m(\operatorname{BMO})$, $P_{f;m-1;0}=0$, and $(\partial^\alpha f)_B=0$ for
$|\alpha|=m$.
\item[(iii)] If $s>d/p$ and $s-d/p\not\in{\mathbb N}$, set $m=\lfloor
  s-d/p\rfloor$.
Then
 given $[u]_\infty\in \dot{L}^p_s$ there exists a
  unique $f\in [u]_\infty$ such that $f\in E^{s,p}$, and it is
  given by
\begin{equation}\label{the-series-3}
f = \sum_{j\in{\mathbb Z}} \big(
M_j u -P_{M_j u; m;0} \big)  \,,
\end{equation}
where the convergence is uniformly on compact sets in
${\mathbb R}^d$, together with all the derivatives up to order $m$, and in the
$\dot\Lambda^{s-d/p}$-norm.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

Finally, we provide the explicit isometric correspondence between the
two homogeneous Sobolev spaces $\dot{W}^{s,p}$ and $\dot{L}^p_s$.
\begin{theorem}\label{Cor}
Let $s>0$, $1<p<\infty$ and let $m=\lfloor s-d/p\rfloor$.
Then, given any $[u]_\infty\in\dot{L}^p_s$ there
exists a unique $f\in [u]_\infty$ such that $f\in E^{s,p}$, so that
$f\in\dot{W}^{s,p}$, or
$[f]_m \in \dot{W}^{s,p}$, resp., if $0<s<d/p$ or $s\ge d/p$, resp.,
with equality of norms.

Conversely, given $f\in\dot{W}^{s,p}$   if $0<s<d/p$, or
$[f]_m \in \dot{W}^{s,p}$,
 if $s\ge d/p$, resp., let $f$ be its image in the realization space
 $E^{s,p}$,
then
$[f]_\infty\in\dot{L}^p_s$, with equality of norms.
\end{theorem}
 \medskip

\section{Preliminary facts}\label{preliminaries-sec}

\subsection{The fractional integral operator ${\mathcal I}_s$}
For $0<s<d$, we consider the Riesz potential ${\mathcal I}_s$ defined for $\varphi\in{\mathcal S}$ as
$$
{\mathcal I}_s \varphi =
{\mathcal F}^{-1} ( |\xi|^{-s}\widehat \varphi) = \omega_{s,d} \big( |\cdot|^{s-d}* \varphi \big)\,,
$$
where $\omega_{s,d}=\Gamma\big((d-s)/2\big)/2^s\pi^{s/2}\Gamma(s/2)$.
Observe that for $s\in(0,d)$, $|\xi|^{-s}$ is locally integrable, so
that if $\varphi\in{\mathcal S}$, $|\xi|^{-s}\widehat \varphi\in L^1$ and ${\mathcal I}_s$ is
well-defined.

For $p\in(0,\infty)$ we denote by $H^p({\mathbb R}^d)$, or simply by $H^p$,
the classical Hardy space on ${\mathbb R}^d$.  Having fixed $\Phi\in{\mathcal S}$ with
$\int\Phi=1$, then
\begin{equation}\label{Hardy-sp-def}
H^p({\mathbb R}^d)
=\big\{ f\in{\mathcal S}':\, f^*(x):=\sup_{t>0} |f*\Phi_t(x)| \in L^p({\mathbb R}^d)
\big\} \,,
\end{equation}
where
$$
\|f\|_{H^p}= \|f^*\|_{L^p}\,.
$$
We recall that the definition of $H^p$ is independent of the choice of
$\Phi$ and that, when
$p\in(1,\infty)$, $H^p$ coincides with $L^p$, with equivalence of
norms.  We also recall that
${\mathcal S}_\infty$ is dense in $H^p$ for all $p\in(0,\infty)$, see
\cite[Ch.II,5.2]{Stein}.
For these and other
properties of the Hardy spaces see e.g. \cite{Stein} or
\cite{Grafakos}.\medskip

For the operator  ${\mathcal I}_s$ the following regularity result holds,
see \cite{Stein},
\cite{Grafakos}, \cite{Krantz-fractional-Hardy-paper} and in
particular \cite{Adams} for (ii).
\begin{prop}\label{Riesz-pot-prop}
Let $s>0$. The operator  ${\mathcal I}_s$, initially defined for $\varphi\in{\mathcal S}$, extends to a
bounded operator
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] if $0<p<d/s$, then ${\mathcal I}_s :H^p\to H^{p^*}$, where
  $\frac{1}{p^*} = \frac1p
  - \frac sd$;\smallskip
\item[(ii)] if $p=d/s$, then ${\mathcal I}_s :H^p\to \operatorname{BMO}$;\smallskip
\item[(iii)] if $p>d/s$, then ${\mathcal I}_s :H^p\to \dot{\Lambda}^{s-d/p}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\medskip

We also recall that the Riesz transforms are the operators $R_j$,
$j=1,\dots,d$,
 initially defined
on Schwartz functions
$$
R_j f(x) = {\mathcal F}^{-1} \Big(
-i\frac{\xi_j}{|\xi|} \widehat f\Big) \,,
$$
and that they satisfy the relation $\sum_{j=1}^d R_j^2 =I$.  Moreover,
the $R_j$ are bounded
$$
R_j :H^p \to  H^p
$$
for all $p\in(0,\infty)$, and $j=1,\dots,d$.

\medskip

\section{Proofs of the main results}\label{realization-sec}

Our first task is to describe explicitly
the elements of  ${\dot{W}}^{s,p}$, that is,
the limits of $L^p$-Cauchy
sequences of the form $\{\Delta^{s/2} \varphi_n\}$, with $\varphi_n\in{\mathcal S}$.
We are going to use this simple lemma, of which we include the
proof for sake of completeness.
\begin{lem}\label{integral-estimate}
Let $1<p<\infty$, $d/p<\nu<1+d/p$.  Given $a\in{\mathbb R}^d\setminus\{0\}$, let
and let $g_a(x)= |a-x|^{\nu-d} - |x|^{\nu-d}$.  Then, $g_a\in L^{p'}$
and
$$
\| g_a\|_{L^{p'}} \lesssim |a|^{\nu-d/p}\,.
$$
\end{lem}

\proof
We first observe that $g_a\in L^{p'}_{{\rm loc}}$ if and only if
$\nu>d/p$, and then that
$\| g_a\|_{L^{p'}} =C |a|^{\nu-d/p}$, where
\begin{align*}
C^{p'}
& = \int_0^\infty \int_S \Big| \frac{1}{|a'-rx'|^{d-\nu}} - \frac{1}{r^{d-\nu}}
\Big|^{p'} \, d\sigma(x')\, r^{d-1}\, dr\\
& = \int_0^\infty \frac{r^{d-1}}{r^{(d-\nu)p'}} \int_S \Big| \frac{1}{|a'/r-x'|^{d-\nu}} - 1
\Big|^{p'} \, d\sigma(x')\, dr \\
& =: \int_0^\infty \frac{r^{d-1}}{r^{(d-\nu)p'}}  F(r)\, dr \,,
\end{align*}
where $S$ denotes the unit sphere in ${\mathbb R}^d$, $d\sigma$ the induced
surface measure, and $a'=a/|a|$.  Thus, since by rotation invariance,
$C$ is independent of $a'$,
we only need to show that $C$
is finite if and only if $0<\nu<1+d/p$. Notice that $F(r)$ is finite
when $\nu>d/p$, so we only need to check the integrability of
$\frac{r^{d-1}}{r^{(d-\nu)p'}}  F(r)$ as $r\to 0^+, \infty$. As $r\to
0^+$, $F(r)= {\mathcal O}(1)$ and $\int_0^\infty
\frac{r^{d-1}}{r^{(d-\nu)p'}}<\infty$ if and only if $d/p<\nu$, which
is the case. As $r\to \infty$, $F(r)\approx 1/s^{p'}$, so that
$$
\int_2^\infty \frac{r^{d-1}}{r^{(d-\nu)p'}}  F(r)\, dr
\approx \int_0^\infty \frac{1}{r^{(d-\nu)p'-d+1+p'}}  \, dr
$$
which is finite if and only if $\nu-d/p<1$.  The conclusion now
follows.
\qed
\medskip

\proof[Proof of Thm. \ref{elements-Wspdot-charact}]
For $0<s<d$, it is immediate to check that for $\varphi\in{\mathcal S}$ we have
that
${\mathcal I}_s \Delta^{s/2} \varphi=\varphi$.  Therefore, by
Prop. \ref{Riesz-pot-prop} (i) we have
\begin{equation} \label{emb-ineq-1}
\|\varphi\|_{L^{p^*}}
 = \| {\mathcal I}_s \Delta^{s/2} \varphi \|_{L^{p^*}} \lesssim \| \Delta^{s/2}
\varphi \|_{L^p} \,.
\end{equation}
Then,  let $\{\varphi_n\}\subseteq{\mathcal S}$ be such that $\{
\Delta^{s/2}\varphi_n\}$ is a Cauchy sequence in $L^p$.  By the above
estimate \eqref{emb-ineq-1} it follows that
$$
\|\varphi_m - \varphi_n\|_{L^{p^*}}
  \lesssim \| \Delta^{s/2}\varphi_m -\Delta^{s/2}
\varphi_n \|_{L^p} \,,
$$
so that there exists $f\in L^{p^*}$ such that $\varphi_n\to f$ in
$L^{p^*}$ as $n\to+\infty$.
By Remark \ref{convergence-rem}, this implies that
$\Delta^{s/2}\varphi_n \to \Delta^{s/2}f$ in $L^p$.  Moreover,
\begin{equation} \label{emb-ineq-2}
\|f\|_{L^{p^*}} =\lim_{n\to+\infty} \| \varphi_n\|_{L^{p*}}
  \lesssim \lim_{n\to+\infty} \| \Delta^{s/2}
 \varphi_n\|_{L^p} =
\| \Delta^{s/2}f\|_{L^p} \,.
\end{equation}
This proves (i).

In order to prove case (ii) with $s=d/p$,
let $\{\varphi_n\}\subseteq{\mathcal S}$ be such that $\{
\Delta^{s/2}\varphi_n\}$ is a Cauchy sequence in $L^p$. Since
$0<s=d/p<d$,
again we have that ${\mathcal I}_s \Delta^{s/2} \varphi_n=\varphi_n$.
 By Prop. \ref{Riesz-pot-prop} (ii) it follows that
$$
\|\varphi_m -\varphi_n\|_{\operatorname{BMO}}
  \lesssim \| \Delta^{s/2}\varphi_m -\Delta^{s/2}
\varphi_n \|_{L^p} \,.
$$
Hence, there exists a unique $g\in \operatorname{BMO}$ such that $\varphi_n\to g$ in
$\operatorname{BMO}$, and it is such\ that $\Delta^{s/2}g\in L^p$.  For, given any
$\psi\in{\mathcal S}_\infty$ we have $\Delta^{s/2}\psi\in {\mathcal S}_\infty \subseteq
H^1$ so that
\begin{align}
\langle g, \Delta^{s/2}\psi \rangle
& = \lim_{n\to+\infty} \langle \varphi_n ,\Delta^{s/2}\psi \rangle
=  \lim_{n\to+\infty} \langle \Delta^{s/2}\varphi_n , \psi \rangle
= \langle G,  \psi \rangle \,, \label{bdd-fnct-Lp}
\end{align}
where $G$ is the $L^p$-limit of $\{ \Delta^{s/2}\varphi_n\}$.  This shows
that the mapping $\psi\to \langle g, \Delta^{s/2}\psi \rangle$ is bounded in
the $L^{p'}$-norm on a dense subset,
and therefore $\Delta^{s/2}g$ defines an element of $L^p$, that is $G$.

Let now $s-d/p=m\in{\mathbb N}$ and let $\{\varphi_n\}\subseteq{\mathcal S}$ be such that $\{
\Delta^{s/2}\varphi_n\}$ is a Cauchy sequence in $L^p$.  Using the
identity
\begin{equation}\label{id-riesz}
| \Delta^{(s-1)/2} \nabla \varphi|^2 = \sum_{j=1}^d |R_j \Delta^{s/2}
\varphi|^2 \,,
\end{equation}
which is valid for all $\varphi\in{\mathcal S}$, and the boundedness of the Riesz
transforms, we see that $\{ \Delta^{(s-1)/2} \partial_j \varphi_n\}$ is a Cauchy
sequence in $L^p$, for $j=1,\dots,d$.  If
$s-d/p=1$, we apply the previous argument to each of the sequences
$\{ \Delta^{(s-1)/2} \partial_j \varphi_n\}$, $j=1,\dots,d$.
If $s-d/p=2$, the argument is analogous but simpler,
given the identity $\Delta^{s/2}
= \Delta^{(s-2)/2}\Delta$,
and in the general
case we argue inductively.

We obtain that, for all multiindices
$\alpha$, with $|\alpha|=m$, there exists $g_\alpha\in\operatorname{BMO}$ such that
$\partial_x^\alpha \varphi_n\to g_\alpha$ in $\operatorname{BMO}$ and
$\Delta^{(s-m)/2}g_\alpha \in L^p$.  Using the fact that in ${\mathcal S}'$
$$
\partial_{x_j} g_\alpha = \partial_{x_\ell} g_\beta
$$
if $\alpha+e_j=\beta+e_\ell$, where $|\alpha|=|\beta|=$,
$e_j,e_\ell$ are the standard
basis vectors, $j,\ell\in\{1,\dots,d\}$, and induction again, it is
easy to see that there exists $g\in S_m(\operatorname{BMO})$ such that $\partial^\alpha
g=g_\alpha$, for $|\alpha|=m$.   This implies that $\varphi_n\to g$ in $ S_m(\operatorname{BMO})$,
hence in particular in ${\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_m$.
Let $\psi\in{\mathcal S}_\infty$, so that we have $\Delta^{s/2}\psi\in {\mathcal S}_\infty \subseteq
H^1$, so that
\begin{align*}
\langle g, \Delta^{s/2}\partial^\alpha \psi \rangle
& = \lim_{n\to+\infty} \langle \partial^\alpha \varphi_n ,\Delta^{s/2} \psi \rangle
=  \lim_{n\to+\infty} \langle \Delta^{s/2}\varphi_n , \partial^\alpha \psi \rangle
= \langle G,  \partial^\alpha \psi \rangle \,,
\end{align*}
Hence, the mapping $\eta\to \langle g, \Delta^{s/2}\eta \rangle$ is bounded in
the $L^{p'}$-norm on ${\mathcal S}_\infty$, that is,
  $\Delta^{s/2}g$ defines an element of
$L^p$.  This proves (ii).
\medskip

Let now $s>d/p$ and $s-d/p\not\in{\mathbb N}$.
  We assume first that $d/p<s<1+d/p$.  For $\varphi\in{\mathcal S}$ and $x\neq
y$ we write
\begin{align*}
\varphi (x) -\varphi(y)
& = \int \frac{e^{ix\xi}-e^{iy\xi}}{|\xi|^s} \big( \Delta^{s/2}
\varphi)\widehat{\,}(\xi)\, d\xi\\
&= \int H(x,y,t)  \Delta^{s/2}
\varphi(t) \, dt
\,,
\end{align*}
where
$$
H(x,y,t)
= {\mathcal F}^{-1} \Big( \frac{e^{ix(\cdot)}-e^{iy(\cdot)}}{|\cdot|^s} \Big) (t)
= \gamma_{s,d}  \big( |t-x|^{s-d} - |t-y|^{s-d} \big)
\,.
$$
By Lemma \ref{integral-estimate} it follows that $H(x,y,\cdot)\in L^{p'}$ and that
$$
\|H(x,y,\cdot)\|_{L^{p'}}
\lesssim |x-y|^{s-d/p} \,.
$$
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\|\varphi\|_{\dot{\Lambda}^{s-d/p}}
& \lesssim \| \Delta^{s/2} \varphi \|_{L^p} \,.
\end{align*}
Hence, given $\{\Delta^{s/2}\varphi_n\}$ is a Cauchy sequence in $L^p$,
there exists a unique $g\in \dot{\Lambda}^{s-d/p}$ such that $\varphi_n\to
g$, as $n\to+\infty$. We argue as before, using the fact that
the dual space of $H^q$ is $\dot\Lambda^{d(1/q-1)}$ when $0<q<1$, see
e.g. \cite[Ch. III]{GarciaCuerva-deFrancia}.
Let $q$ be given by $1/q= 1-1/p+s/d$, so that $0<q<1$. Then
$\dot{\Lambda}^{s-d/p} = (H^q)^*$, and
given any
$\psi\in{\mathcal S}_\infty$ we have $\Delta^{s/2}\psi\in {\mathcal S}_\infty \subseteq
H^q$, so that
\begin{align}
\langle g, \Delta^{s/2}\psi \rangle
& = \lim_{n\to+\infty} \langle \varphi_n ,\Delta^{s/2}\psi \rangle
=  \lim_{n\to+\infty} \langle \Delta^{s/2}\varphi_n , \psi \rangle
= \langle G,  \psi \rangle \,, \label{bdd-fnct-Lp}
\end{align}
where $G$ is the $L^p$-limit of $\{ \Delta^{s/2}\varphi_n\}$.  This shows
that the mapping $\psi\to \langle g, \Delta^{s/2}\psi \rangle$ is bounded in
the $L^{p'}$-norm on a dense subset,
and therefore $\Delta^{s/2}g$ defines an element of $L^p$, that is $G$.
 We conclude that
$\Delta^{s/2}g\in L^p$ as well.  Finally, if $s-d/p\not\in{\mathbb N}$ and
$s-d/p>1$, let $m=\lfloor s-d/p \rfloor$, and $|\alpha|=m$.  Since,
$\| \Delta^{(s-m)/2}\partial^\alpha \varphi_n\|^{L^p} \le
\| R^\alpha \Delta^{s/2}\partial^\alpha \varphi_n\|^{L^p} \le \|
\Delta^{s/2}\partial^\alpha \varphi_n\|^{L^p}$, $\{ \Delta^{(s-m)/2}\partial^\alpha
\varphi_n\}$ is a Cauchy sequence in $L^p$.
Using the first part
we can find $g_\alpha\in
\dot{\Lambda}^{s-m-d/p}$ such that
$\partial^\alpha \varphi_n \to g_\alpha$ in
$\dot{\Lambda}^{s-m-d/p}$, for all $\alpha$ with $|\alpha|=m$.
Hence, arguing as in (ii), there exists a unique
$g\in\dot{\Lambda}^{s-d/p}$ such that $\partial^\alpha g=g_\alpha$ for
$|\alpha|=m$.  Hence,
$\varphi_n\to g$ in ${\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_m$,  since $\partial^\alpha \varphi_n \to \partial^\alpha g$  in
$\dot{\Lambda}^{s-m-d/p}$
 for
$|\alpha|=m$, $\varphi_n\to g$ in $\dot{\Lambda}^{s-d/p}$.  Finally, by \eqref{bdd-fnct-Lp} it is
now clear that $\Delta^{s/2} g\in L^p$, and (iii) follows as well.
\qed
\medskip

We state the characterization of ${\dot{W}}^{s,p}$, that also provides
the precise embedding result.  It may be considered {\em folklore} by
some, but to the best of our knowledge, there exists no explicit
statement in the literature.
From this, the proof of Thm. \ref{main-thm-realization-Wsp-dot}
is then obvious.

\begin{cor}\label{real-hom-sob} For $s>0$ and $p\in(1,+\infty)$, the
 following properties hold.

\noindent
{\rm  (i)} Let $0<s<\frac dp$, and let $p^*\in(1,\infty)$ given by
$\frac{1}{p^*}=\frac1p - \frac sd$.
Then,
 $$
{\dot{W}}^{s,p} =\big\{f\in L^{p^*}:\,
\|\Delta^{s/2} f\|_{L^p} <+\infty \big\} \,,
 $$
and
$$
\| f\|_{ L^{p^*}} \lesssim \| f\|_{{\dot{W}}^{s,p}}\,.
$$

\noindent
{\rm (ii)}
Let $s-d/p\in{\mathbb N}$ and set $m=\lfloor s-d/p \rfloor$.
Then,
$$
{\dot{W}}^{s,p} =\big\{f \in S_m(\operatorname{BMO}):\,
\|\Delta^{s/2} f\|_{L^p} <+\infty \big\} \,,
 $$
and
$$
\| f\|_{ S_m(\operatorname{BMO})} \lesssim \| f\|_{{\dot{W}}^{s,p}}\,.
$$

\noindent
{\rm (iii)}
Let $s>d/p$, $s-d/p\not\in{\mathbb N}$ and let
 set $m=\lfloor s-d/p \rfloor$.
Then,
$$
{\dot{W}}^{s,p} =\big\{f \in \dot{\Lambda}^{s-d/p}:\,
\|\Delta^{s/2} f\|_{L^p} <+\infty \big\} \,,
 $$
and
$$
\| f\|_{ \dot{\Lambda}^{s-d/p}} \lesssim \| f\|_{{\dot{W}}^{s,p}}\,.
$$

In particular, $\dot{W}^{s,p}$ is a space of functions if $s<d/p$,
while
$\dot{W}^{s,p}\subseteq{\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_m$, where $m=\lfloor s-d/p \rfloor$,
if $s\ge d/p$.
\end{cor}

We also have the following characterization.  We point out that if $m$
is a negative integer, ${\mathcal P}_m=\emptyset$ and ${\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_m $ is ${\mathcal S}'$
itself, as well as ${\mathcal S}_m={\mathcal S}$.
\begin{cor}\label{ale-charact}
For $s>0$ and $p\in(1,+\infty)$, let $m=\lfloor s-d/p\rfloor$. Then,
\begin{multline*}
\dot{W}^{s,p}
= \big\{ [f]_m\in{\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_m :\,
\text{(i)
there exists a sequence}\ \{\varphi_n\}\subseteq {\mathcal S}\ \text{such that }
[\varphi_n]_m\to [f]_m \text{ in }{\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_m; \\
 \text{(ii)  the sequence} \ \{\Delta^{s/2}\varphi_n\}\ \text{is a
   Cauchy sequence in}\ L^p \big\}\,.
\end{multline*}
\end{cor}

\proof
We have shown that any element of $\dot{W}^{s,p}$ is an element of
${\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_m$ satisfying the conditions $(i)$ and $(ii)$ above.
Conversely, let $[f]_m\in{\mathcal S}'/{\mathcal P}_m$ satisfy the conditions $(i)$ and
$(ii)$.  We need to show that for any $f\in[f]_m$,
$\Delta^{s/2}f$ is a well-defined element of $L^p$ -- in fact the
$L^p$-limit of the sequence $\{\Delta^{s/2}\varphi_n\}$.

Let $g=\lim_{n\to+\infty} \Delta^{s/2} \varphi_n$ and fix
 $\psi\in{\mathcal S}_\infty$. Then $\Delta^{s/2}\psi
\in{\mathcal S}_\infty\subseteq{\mathcal S}_m$ and we have
\begin{align*}
\langle g,\psi\rangle
&= \lim_{n\to+\infty} \langle \Delta^{s/2} \varphi_n, \psi\rangle =
\lim_{n\to+\infty} \langle \varphi_n, \Delta^{s/2} \psi\rangle
= \lim_{n\to+\infty} \langle [\varphi_n]_m, \Delta^{s/2} \psi\rangle \\
& = \langle [f]_m ,\Delta^{s/2} \psi\rangle \,.
\end{align*}
Therefore, we may set $\Delta^{s/2}[f]_m =g\in L^p$.
\qed \medskip

We also have the following, but significant observation.
\begin{cor}\label{Delta-s-ammazza-polimoni}
Let $s>0$, $m=[s-\frac d2]$.  Then, for every $P\in{\mathcal P}_m$,
$\Delta^{s/2}P=0$.
\end{cor}

\proof
We show that there exists sequences of Schwartz functions $\{\varphi_n\}$
such that $\{\Delta^{s/2}\varphi_n\}$ is a Cauchy sequence in $L^2$, while
$\varphi_n\to P$ in ${\mathcal S}'$.  Suppose first $s>\frac d2$ and
$s-\frac d2\not\in{\mathbb N}$. Let $\psi\in C^\infty_c$ be nonnegative,
identically $1$ for $|x|\le1 $ and with support in
$\{|x|\le2\}$. Define $\psi^\varepsilon(x)=\psi(\varepsilon x)$, and set $\varphi_n =
P\psi^{\frac1n}$.  Then, it is obvious that $\varphi_n \to
P$ in ${\mathcal S}'$, while if we assume momentarily that $P=x^\alpha$, with
$|\alpha|=k$, and write
\begin{align*}
\|\Delta^{s/2} \varphi_n\|_{L^2}^2
& =  \int  |\xi|^{2s} \big| \big( \widehat P*
\widehat{\psi (\cdot/n)}\big)(\xi) \big|^2 \, d\xi
 =  \int  |\xi|^{2s} \big| \big( \widehat P*
\widehat{\psi (\cdot/n)}\big)(\xi) \big|^2 \, d\xi \\
&   = n^{2(d+k)} \int  |\xi|^{2s} \big|
\partial_\xi^\alpha \widehat\psi (n\xi) \big|^2 \, d\xi
 =  n^{d+2(k-s)} \int  |x|^{2s} \big|
\partial^\alpha \widehat\psi (x) \big|^2 \, dx \,,
\end{align*}
which tends to $0$ as $n\to+\infty$ when $s-\frac d2>k$, i.e. when
$k\le [s-\frac d2]$.

Next, we assume that $s=\frac d2$.  Let $\{\varphi_n\}$ be a
sequence in ${\mathcal S}_\infty$ such that $\Delta^{s/2} \varphi_n \to 0$ in
$L^2$. Then, since $\varphi_n \in {\mathcal S}_\infty$,
$\varphi_n={\mathcal I}_{d/2}\Delta^{s/2}\varphi_n$, by  Prop. \ref{Riesz-pot-prop}
(ii), $\varphi_n\to 0$ in $\operatorname{BMO}$, hence to a constant.  Finally, if
$s-\frac d2=m\in{\mathbb N}$, and we assume the conclusion valid for $m-1$,
we proceed inductively, using identity \eqref{id-riesz}.  If
$ \Delta^{s/2} \varphi_n \to 0$ in
$L^2$, then $\Delta^{s-1/2} \partial_j\varphi_n \to  0$ in
$L^2$ and therefore $\partial_j \varphi_n\to 0$ in ${\mathcal P}_{m-1}$. This proves the lemma.
\qed
\medskip

We now turn to the proof of Thm. \ref{main-thm-realization-Lps-dot}.

\proof[Proof of Thm. \ref{main-thm-realization-Lps-dot}]
(i) Let $[u]_\infty\in \dot{L}^p_s$ with $s<d/p$, and set
$\varphi_n = \sum_{|j|\le n} M_j u$.  Then, $\varphi_n\in{\mathcal S}_\infty$ and using
Cor. \ref{real-hom-sob} (1) and the equality $\dot{\Delta}^{s/2}\varphi=
[\Delta^{s/2}\varphi]_\infty$ for functions in ${\mathcal S}$ we have
that, for $n<m\in{\mathbb N}$,
\begin{align*}
\| \varphi_m-\varphi_n\|_{L^{p^*}}
& = \Big\| \sum_{n<|j|\le m} M_j u\Big\|_{L^{p^*}} \lesssim
\Big\| \dot{\Delta}^{s/2} \Big( \sum_{n<|j|\le m} M_j u \Big) \Big\|_{L^p}
= \Big\| \sum_{n<|j|\le m} M_j u\Big\|_{\dot{L}^p_s} \\
& \approx \Big\| \Big( \sum_{k\in{\mathbb Z}} \big( 2^{ks} \big| M_k
\textstyle{ \sum_{n<|j|\le m} M_j u } \big| \big)^2 \Big)^{1/2}
\Big\|_{L^p} \\
& \lesssim \Big\| \Big(
\sum_{n-2\le |k|\le m+2}  \big( 2^{ks} \big| M_k u \big| \big)^2 \Big)^{1/2}
\Big\|_{L^p}
\,.
\end{align*}
Since $u\in\dot{L}^p_s$, the equivalence of norms in
\eqref{LP-charact-Lps} implies that $\{\varphi_n\}$ is a Cauchy
sequence in $L^{p^*}$.  Therefore,
it follows that $f=\sum_{j\in{\mathbb Z}} M_j u$, where the convergence is in
$L^{p^*}$.
This proves (i)
\medskip

We now prove (iii).   Consider the series on the right hand side of
\eqref{the-series-3}. We claim that the series converges uniformly on compact sets in
${\mathbb R}^d$, together with the series of partial derivatives up to order
$m:=\lfloor s-d/p \rfloor$.  Assuming the claim, and letting $f$ denotes
its sum, we clearly have that $f\in{\mathcal C}^m$ and $P_{f;m;0}=0$. Moreover,
letting $\Phi_n =\sum_{|j|\le n} (M_j u-P_{M_ju;m;0})$, $\varphi_n=
  \sum_{|j|\le n} M_j u$, and using Cor. \ref{real-hom-sob}  we have
\begin{align*}
\| \Phi_n \|_{\dot{\Lambda}^{s-d/p}}
& = \| \varphi_n \|_{\dot{\Lambda}^{s-d/p}} \lesssim \| \varphi_n
\|_{\dot{W}^{s,p}} = \| \Delta^{s/2} \varphi_n \|_{L^p} \\
& \le \Big\| \Big(\sum_{|k|\le n+1} 2^{ks} |M_ju|^2 \Big)^{1/2}
\Big\|_{L^p} \,.
\end{align*}
Hence, the series on the right hand side of \eqref{the-series-3}
converges also in $\dot{\Lambda}^{s-d/p}$ and uniquely determines $f$.
Then, the conclusion
follows modulo the claim.

The following estimate holds true for
$f\in\dot{\Lambda}^\gamma$, $\gamma$ not an integer,
see \cite[Cor. 3.4]{Krantz-Lipschitz-paper},
\begin{equation}\label{vera?}
\big|f(x)-P_{f;m;y}(x)\big| \lesssim |x-y|^{\gamma-m} \| \nabla^m
f\|_{\dot{\Lambda}^{\gamma-\lfloor \gamma \rfloor}} \,,
\end{equation}
where we set $\nabla^m f = \big(\partial^\alpha f\big)_{|\alpha|=m} $.
Since $s-m>d/p$, by  Sobolev's embedding theorem, Cor. \ref{real-hom-sob} (iii),
if
$|x|\le r$ we
have
\begin{align*}
| \Phi_\ell (x) - \Phi_n(x) |
& \lesssim_r \| \nabla^m \Phi_\ell - \nabla^m \Phi_n\|_{\dot\Lambda^{s-m-d/p}} \lesssim \|
\varphi_\ell - \varphi_n\|_{\dot{W}^{s,p}}  \\
& \approx \Big\| \Big( \sum_{k\ge1} \Big(2^{ks} \big|M_k \big(
\sum_{\ell\le |j|\le n} \Delta_ju \big) \big|\Big)^2 \Big)^{1/2}
\Big\|_{L^p} \\
& \lesssim \Big\| \Big( \sum_{\ell-1\le k\le n+1} \big(2^{ks}
|M_k u| \big)^2  \Big)^{1/2} \Big\|_{L^p}
\end{align*}
This shows that the series converges uniformly on
compact sets.  The same argument now easily applies to series of partial
derivatives up to order $m$, since
$$
| \partial^\alpha \varphi_\ell (x) - \partial^\alpha \varphi_n(x) |
 \lesssim_r\| \nabla^{m-|\alpha|} \partial^\alpha \varphi_\ell
- \nabla^{m-|\alpha|} \partial^\alpha \varphi_n\|_{\Lambda^{s-m-d/p}}
\lesssim \|\varphi_\ell - \varphi_n\|_{\dot{W}^{s,p}}\,.
$$
Therefore, $\Phi_n \to f$, which is an element of $[u]_\infty$, and
this proves (iii).
\medskip

In order to prove (ii),
let $s-d/p=m=0$, and
consider the two series on the right hand side of
\eqref{the-series-2.0}, that is,
$\sum_{j\le0} \big(
M_j u -M_j(0) \big)$, and $\sum_{j\ge1}
M_j u$.  We begin with the latter one.
We observe that $\sum_{j\ge1}
M_j u$ converges to an element of $\dot\operatorname{BMO}:=\operatorname{BMO}/{\mathcal P}_\infty$,
say to $f+P$, for some
$P\in{\mathcal P}_\infty$.
However,
its Fourier transform has support in $\{|\xi|\ge1\}$, hence it must be $P=0$, so
that $\sum_{j\ge1}
M_j u=f_1$ is a locally integrable function.

Next we show that the former series converge uniformly on compact subsets to
a function $f_0$.
For $|x|\le r$
we have
\begin{align*}
|M_j u(x) -M_ju(0) |
& \lesssim_r  \sup_{|x|\le r} |  M_j\nabla  u (x)|
 \lesssim  2^{j(1+d/p)}\| M_j  u \|_{L^p} \\
& \lesssim 2^j \Big(
\int \Big( \sum_{k\in{\mathbb Z}}  |M_k 2^{jd/p}  M_j u (x)|^2 \Big)^{p/2} \, dx \Big)^{1/p} \\
& \lesssim 2^j \Big(
\int \Big( \sum_{|k-j|\le1 } \big( 2^k |M_k   u(x)|\big) ^2
\Big)^{p/2} \, dx \Big)^{1/p} \\
& \lesssim 2^j \| [u]_\infty\|_{\dot{L}^p_s}
\,.
\end{align*}
Since $j\le0$, the conclusion follows.  Now set
$$
f = f_0+f_1 - (f_0+f_1)_B \,,
$$
and the case $m=0$ is proved.

Let now $s-d/p=m\ge1$ and consider the series on the right hand side
of \eqref{the-series-2.m}.
For $|x|\le r$,  arguing as before
we have
\begin{align*}
|M_j u(x) -P_{M_ju;m;0}(x) |
& \lesssim_r  \sup_{|x|\le r} |  M_j\nabla^{m+1}  u (x)|
 \lesssim  2^{j(m+1+d/p)}\| M_j  u \|_{L^p} \\
& \lesssim 2^j \Big(
\int \Big( \sum_{k\in{\mathbb Z}}  |M_k 2^{jd/p}  M_j u (x)|^2 \Big)^{p/2} \, dx \Big)^{1/p} \\
& \lesssim 2^{j(m+1)} \Big(
\int \Big( \sum_{|k-j|\le1 } \big( 2^k |M_k   u(x)|\big) ^2
\Big)^{p/2} \, dx \Big)^{1/p} \\
& \lesssim 2^{j(m+1)} \| [u]_\infty\|_{\dot{L}^p_s}
\,.
\end{align*}
Thus, the series converges uniformly on compact subsets.
Clearly, the same argument applies to all derivatives $\partial^\alpha_x$ with
$|\alpha|\le m$.  Then, the function $f_0\in{\mathcal C}^m$.  On the other
hand, the series $\sum_{j\ge1} M_ju$ is such that, for $|\alpha|\le
m-1$, recalling that $j\ge1$,
\begin{align*}
|\partial^\alpha M_ju(x)|
& \le 2^{j(|\alpha|+d/p)} \| M_ju\|_{L^p} \lesssim
\Big(
\int \Big( \sum_{|j-k|\le1}
|M_k (2^{j(|\alpha|+d/p)}  M_ju)|^2 \Big)^{p/2} \, dx \Big)^{1/p}  \\
& \lesssim
\Big(
\int \Big( \sum_{|j-k|\le1}
|M_k (2^{j(|\alpha|+d/p)}  M_ju)|^2 \Big)^{p/2} \, dx \Big)^{1/p} \\
& \lesssim
2^{-j} \Big(
\int \Big( \sum_{k\ge0}
 (2^{ks} |M_k  u|) ^2 \Big)^{p/2} \, dx \Big)^{1/p} \,.
\end{align*}
Thus, also the series $\sum_{j\ge1} M_ju$ converges uniformly on
compact subsets, together with its partial derivatives $\partial^\alpha$,
with $|\alpha|\le m-1$.  Finally, if $|\alpha|=m$ we have
$$
\partial^\alpha( f_0 + f_1)
= \sum_{j\le0} M_j (\partial^\alpha u) - M_j (\partial^\alpha u)(0) +
\sum_{j\ge1} M_j (\partial^\alpha u) \,,
$$
and we can repeat the argument of the case $m=0$.

Finally, we set $f_0+f_1=f_2$ and define
$$
f= f_2- P_{f_2; m-1;0}(x) -
\sum_{|\alpha|=m} (\partial^\alpha f_2)_B
\,.
$$
It is now easy to see that $f\in E^{s,p}$.
\qed
\medskip

The proof of Theorem \ref{Cor} is now obvious, and we are done.
\medskip

\section{Final remarks, and comparison with the work of Bourdaud}

In \cite{Bourdaud} Bourdaud proved a version of
Thm. \ref{main-thm-realization-Lps-dot}, and our work is inspired by
his.  The descriptions of the realization spaces are similar, but not
identical. In particular  we explicitly refer to the $\operatorname{BMO}$
space. Moreover,  Bourdaud is mainly focused on the techniques of the
Besov spaces, and the proof in the case of Sobolev spaces are
different, and typically more involved.  However, we point out that
Bourdaud proved  that the spaces $E^{s,p}$ with $s-d/p\not\in{\mathbb N}_0$
are the {\em unique} realization of $\dot{L}^p_s$ that are dilation
invariant, while, if $s-d/p \in{\mathbb N}_0$ there does not exist any
dilation
invariant realization of $\dot{L}^p_s$.

We mention that we have restrict ourselves to the case
$p\in(1,\infty)$.  The case of the Hardy spaces, that is, $p\in(0,1]$
is also of great interest and we believe it is worth further investigation.

Finally,
it would also be very interesting to study analogous properties for
the homogeneous versions of Sobolev and Besov spaces in the
sub-Riemannian setting, see the recent papers
\cite{PV,BPTV,BPV,BPV-GAHA}.  \medskip

{\em Acknowledgements.}  We warmly thank G. Bourdaud for several
useful comments and remarks
  that improved the presentation of this paper.